Happy Atheist Forum

We know significantly more than we once did about how pleasure is brought about in the human brain.  In fact, a person could conceivably combine exhaustive study of the academic research on human pleasure with personal experimentation on oneself to postulate the ideal mixture of stimuli (e.g., experiences, drugs, etc.) to produce a life that maximizes pleasurable brain-states.

Two questions for the atheist: 
- Is not the most rational next step after resolving athism to then launch a full-scale scientific expedition to understand what stimuli would yield the most pleasurable life?
- Has anyone undertaken such an expedition and would be willing to share the results?

By pleasurable, do you mean, happy?

Quote from: bandit4god on October 24, 2011, 03:39:58 PM
- Is not the most rational next step after resolving athism to then launch a full-scale scientific expedition to understand what stimuli would yield the most pleasurable life?

Why?  We aren't all scientists, we've got other things to do and has it occured to you that most peoples lives are already pleasurable and we don't really care why?  Has it also occured to you that pleasure is an extremely individual thing and there is no black and white "do this and be happy always" solution to what appears to be your pleasure problem?

Quote from: bandit4god on October 24, 2011, 03:39:58 PM
Two questions for the atheist: 
- Is not the most rational next step after resolving athism to then launch a full-scale scientific expedition to understand what stimuli would yield the most pleasurable life?

I'd be willing to do this. Though, I'm going to need a ton of funding for all of the necessary whiskey. Anyone have experience in grant writing?

b4g, we're back to this old rubbish about atheists being amoral hedonists seeking nothing beyond self-gratification.  How many times do we have to say it here and elswhere - we are no such thing.
For fuck's sake - ALL WE ARE IS PEOPLE WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD!  As regards morals, hedonism, whatever ... we cover the same spectrum as any other set.

Quote- Is not the most rational next step after resolving athism to then launch a full-scale scientific expedition to understand what stimuli would yield the most pleasurable life?

Why?  I see no connection whatever between the two and cannot grasp why anyone should feel that the one should follow the other.  This is just the usual prejudice from one who seems to have learned little from this forum.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 24, 2011, 03:39:58 PM
- Is not the most rational next step after resolving athism to then launch a full-scale scientific expedition to understand what stimuli would yield the most pleasurable life?

Why would I waste time doing that?  I'd have to go to college again for a different degree to be qualified to run a study anyone else would pay attention to.  I'd also have to be motivated to study something that the human body is naturally able to figure out by itself.  Humans, and all life to at least some extent, are pleasure seeking machines...on the basic level 'pleasure' is simple survival.  Even when someone does something charitable they do so because (for a wide range of possible reasons) doing good makes them feel better than not taking action.

Anyway, there are already tons of studies done by psychologists and sociologists which relate to human emotions; so it's not like someone should feel compelled to run studies that have already been done.

I would also think that a theist would have equal interest in what actions could result in the best life....but it's not like anyone could create a detailed prescription because we all have our individual preferences.

Okay, now I'm pretty sure b4g is trolling.

Quote from: Whitney on October 24, 2011, 03:59:52 PM

Quote from: bandit4god on October 24, 2011, 03:39:58 PM
- Is not the most rational next step after resolving athism to then launch a full-scale scientific expedition to understand what stimuli would yield the most pleasurable life?

Why would I waste time doing that?  I'd have to go to college again for a different degree to be qualified to run a study anyone else would pay attention to.

Not to mention get funding for the dogsleds, bearing in mind that it's an expedition that b4g is talking about.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 24, 2011, 03:39:58 PM

Two questions for the atheist[edited] and the ignostic[/edited]:  
- Is not the most rational next step after resolving athism to then launch a full-scale scientific expedition to understand what stimuli would yield the most pleasurable life?
- Has anyone undertaken such an expedition and would be willing to share the results?

Are you considering pleasurable life a human universal? Take your own life (please take it). Do you consider it pleasurable? If you don't then you're some masochistic nutcase or just a plain loser; in either case you have nothing of interest to say. If you do, then good on you. Enjoy. I'm sure I would find your life the purest form of hell (and you, mine). I do things because they're fun. Luckily, I get fun out of many many things -- the main exception being any form of authority (giving or receiving).
Lighten up and enjoy yourself. Acquire knowledge and share. That usually does the trick. Do we really need anything more?

Quote from: OldGit on October 24, 2011, 03:56:52 PM
b4g, we're back to this old rubbish about atheists being amoral hedonists seeking nothing beyond self-gratification.  How many times do we have to say it here and elswhere - we are no such thing.
For fuck's sake - ALL WE ARE IS PEOPLE WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD!  As regards morals, hedonism, whatever ... we cover the same spectrum as any other set.

Quote- Is not the most rational next step after resolving athism to then launch a full-scale scientific expedition to understand what stimuli would yield the most pleasurable life?

Why?  I see no connection whatever between the two and cannot grasp why anyone should feel that the one should follow the other.  This is just the usual prejudice from one who seems to have learned little from this forum.

I'm not saying anything of the sort.  I'm the one out of 10,000 theists actually trying to put myself in the shoes of an atheist.

Do you believe there are valueable actions/outcomes in an absolute sense?
- If yes, why?  To what standard or set of norms can you assert that those actions/outcomes have value?
- If no, then life is an exercise in pleasure.  This is not a pejorative statement, just a scientific statement about an animal.

^ It's just the usual dreary prejudice and I'm not going to bother to answer yet again what has been gone over dozens of times here and in similar places.

I'll simply mention that I spend a good deal of my time on volunteer work with disabled people.  Work that out if you can be bothered.

Life is an exercise in survival leading to reproduction. If experiencing pleasure improves the chances of survival and reproduction it is a trait that will be positively selected for.

Theists claim that a supernatural entity brought the reality we inhabit into existence. Atheists disagree with this claim.

People (irrespective of their theistic/atheistic views) live their lives to minimise stress, hunger, thirst and any number of negative situations they find themselves in. They may also gain pleasure from reading a good book, drinking a fine wine, masturbating or raping a choir boy.

Human motivations are complex and unique because our brains are complex and unique.

I live my life to keep a roof over my head, food on the table and the central heating running. I think that 99% of the human population don't live for pleasure but from the simple need to eat, drink and keep a roof over the heads of their families. Thus pleasure is a 'red herring' in terms of day-today motivations for all but the rich and terminally hedonistic.

Quote- Is not the most rational next step after resolving athism to then launch a full-scale scientific expedition to understand what stimuli would yield the most pleasurable life?

Not unless that is where your talents and interests lie.

Quote- Has anyone undertaken such an expedition and would be willing to share the results?

I tend to get drunk on occasion, but am yet to undertake a massive killing spree followed by sex with the top five people on my wish list.

Quote from: Asmodean on October 24, 2011, 05:20:22 PM

Quote- Has anyone undertaken such an expedition and would be willing to share the results?

I tend to get drunk on occasion, but am yet to undertake a massive killing spree followed by sex with the top five people on my wish list.

You may wish to reverse the order of those two  :D

Unless Asmo's into necrophilia?

Just the sort of thing them pesky atheists get up to.  No values, y'see.

I really can't be bothered to go into debates on morality/values with theists who are convinced they know both that objective and absolute morality exists and what that morality dictates. They take both the philosophical and biological aspects to it and make it small enough to fit their worldview.

bandit...if you are asking if any of the atheists here believe in objective morality then just come out with it.

You'll get a combination of yes, no, and maybe responses; well assuming that enough people respond to demonstrate the wide range of responses individual atheists give to that question.

I'm in the it seems to be that way and the foundation of morality would be empathy towards others but it's also complicated since what is good for one group is not good for another and there can be more than one right approach to a given situation.

Quote from: Tank on October 24, 2011, 05:09:26 PM
People (irrespective of their theistic/atheistic views) live their lives to minimise stress, hunger, thirst and any number of negative situations they find themselves in. They may also gain pleasure from reading a good book, drinking a fine wine, masturbating or raping a choir boy.

Human motivations are complex and unique because our brains are complex and unique.

I live my life to keep a roof over my head, food on the table and the central heating running. I think that 99% of the human population don't live for pleasure but from the simple need to eat, drink and keep a roof over the heads of their families. Thus pleasure is a 'red herring' in terms of day-today motivations for all but the rich and terminally hedonistic.

Science is quickly approaching a point at which it could say with confidence which stimuli (and mixture thereof) generate the most dopamine production over time.  (I understand this is oversimplifying the neuroscience of reward, but hereafter I'll use the proxy of "dopamine production" to represent the complex biochemical process of one experiencing of pleasure)  It is just as natural to imagine that scientists could target their recommended stimuli of what generates the highest volume of dopamine production by the "customer's" background, income level, and any number of other contextual conditions.

Overlay on this the answer to the earlier question, "Do you believe there are valueable actions/outcomes in an absolute sense?"  Tank's above answer seems to be "no".

Why, then, would Tank or any other reasonable atheist overlook the above scientific research and live of life of sub-optimal dopamine production?

um...it's hard for doctors to prescribe the right anti-depressant to someone; they aren't close at all to figuring out the perfect formula to making people continually content let alone continually optimally happy.

Some drugs can give reasonable people a dopamine rush (and a whole lot of other problems with it), does that mean that reasonable people should seek them out?  Frequent users might see themselves as living a life of sub-optimal dopamine production when they're not high...

Quote from: Tank on October 24, 2011, 05:30:14 PM
You may wish to reverse the order of those two  :D

Nono, first MASSIVE killing spree, then sleep with top five at the same time while they are alive and otherwise undamaged, then gnaw their heads off.  ;D

...Then perhaps try the necrophilia OldGit suggested... Could be... Interesting. Oh! And then, cook and eat their brains.

Quote from: Whitney on October 24, 2011, 06:09:05 PM
bandit...if you are asking if any of the atheists here believe in objective morality then just come out with it.

Not morality, value.  My question has always been, "Do you believe actions/outcomes can be valuable in an absolute (objective) sense?"
- if yes, why?
- if no, do you take the next logical step, make a concerted effort to discover what brings you the most pleasure and fill your life with it?  If so, how?  If not, why not?

Quoteum...it's hard for doctors to prescribe the right anti-depressant to someone; they aren't close at all to figuring out the perfect formula to making people continually content let alone continually optimally happy.

Thinking too narrow... remove the adverse affects of crystal meth and you're there.

If that makes you squirm, consider instead the fascinating thought experiment of the neverending, blissful dream (think "The Matrix").  If you could plug into a dream world free to perform the most dopamine-producing mixture of life events for the rest of your life (even get to test it for an hour beforehand to make sure it works), would you?  If you say no, it may be a clue that you actually do believe in valuable actions/outcomes in an objective sense.  If you say yes (as millions of World of Warcraft addicts have!), you're perfectly coherent with atheism.

QuoteMy question has always been, "Do you believe actions/outcomes can be valuable in an absolute (objective) sense?"
- if yes, why?
- if no, do you take the next logical step, make a concerted effort to discover what brings you the most pleasure and fill your life with it?  If so, how?  If not, why not?

Asked and answered already. Try and read more carefully.
Are you sure that you're not asking us to do your homework for you? The phrasing of your questions lend themselves to this interpretation.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 24, 2011, 06:31:32 PMIf you could plug into a dream world free to perform the most dopamine-producing mixture of life events for the rest of your life (even get to test it for an hour beforehand to make sure it works), would you?  If you say no, it may be a clue that you actually do believe in valuable actions/outcomes in an objective sense.  If you say yes (as millions of World of Warcraft addicts have!), you're perfectly coherent with atheism hedonism.

OldGit has already pointed out that you are describing a hedonist position, not atheist. You responded with what I consider to be a disingenuous assertion that you're "trying to put myself in the shoes of an atheist." You ignored what he had told you, and proceeded to assert that people who do not believe in absolute value must "scientifically" be judged to be intent on an "exercise in pleasure." What scientific evidence do you have to back up your position? Until you produce some, I cannot see why anyone would take your position of equating atheism with hedonism seriously.

Even if you can produce scientific evidence which shows that a person who does not believe in absolute value is automatically thereby devoted to making life an exercise in pleasure, that is irrelevant to atheism. Atheists may believe in "absolute value," even if they don't believe that such value is determined by a deity. You may find it hard to accept, but there is no reason that lacking a belief in deities means one cannot believe that there are absolute values.

Quote from: Recusant on October 24, 2011, 08:09:40 PM
OldGit has already pointed out that you are describing a hedonist position, not atheist. You responded with what I consider to be a disingenuous assertion that you're "trying to put myself in the shoes of an atheist." You ignored what he had told you, and proceeded to assert that people who do not believe in absolute value must "scientifically" be judged to be intent on an "exercise in pleasure." What scientific evidence do you have to back up your position? Until you produce some, I cannot see why anyone would take your position of equating atheism with hedonism seriously.

Is not the rational extension of (atheism & all-value-is-subjective) doing what one values as pleasurable?  I don't mean pleasurable in any seedy way, mind you, could be learning, art, etc.

QuoteEven if you can produce scientific evidence which shows that a person who does not believe in absolute value is automatically thereby devoted to making life an exercise in pleasure, that is irrelevant to atheism. Atheists may believe in "absolute value," even if they don't believe that such value is determined by a deity. You may find it hard to accept, but there is no reason that lacking a belief in deities means one cannot believe that there are absolute values.

I'm interested in this group (atheism & objective-value-exists) more than any other, but can't seem to find any willing to step forward, describe their taxonomy of value, and explain why it is so.

Would you care to, Rec?

Quote from: bandit4god on October 24, 2011, 08:30:19 PMIs not the rational extension of (atheism & all-value-is-subjective) doing what one values as pleasurable?  I don't mean pleasurable in any seedy way, mind you, could be learning, art, etc.

By adopting such a position, one would merely be putting pleasure in pride of place over any other perceived good: "[T]he doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life." (Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hedonism)) Hmm. Let's compare that to "a disbelief in the existence of deity." (Ibid. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism)) It would appear that you are badly off track. You have not shown this supposed direct "rational extension," nor have you produced any scientific evidence which would support such a "rational" position. Until you do either or both, I feel justified in considering your argument a feeble caricature of atheism.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 24, 2011, 08:30:19 PMI'm interested in this group (atheism & objective-value-exists) more than any other, but can't seem to find any willing to step forward, describe their taxonomy of value, and explain why it is so.

Would you care to, Rec?

I don't happen to agree with this position, so I would be arguing for something that I myself do not accept. I might do so as an exercise in rhetoric, but one of the reasons I didn't pursue life as an attorney is that I'm not really interested in building skills in argumentation to hire them out. However, if you're truly interested in learning about an atheist position which asserts that there are objective (and depending on one's definition, "absolute") values and objective morality, you might read Sam Harris's book The Moral Landscape.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 24, 2011, 06:31:32 PM
Thinking too narrow... remove the adverse affects of crystal meth and you're there.

You said scientists were almost there....if meth is as close as you think they can get then there is a LONG way to go.  Almost all effects of meth are negative; especially after long term use.

QuoteIf that makes you squirm, consider instead the fascinating thought experiment of the neverending, blissful dream (think "The Matrix").  If you could plug into a dream world free to perform the most dopamine-producing mixture of life events for the rest of your life (even get to test it for an hour beforehand to make sure it works), would you?  If you say no, it may be a clue that you actually do believe in valuable actions/outcomes in an objective sense.  If you say yes (as millions of World of Warcraft addicts have!), you're perfectly coherent with atheism.

Watch Vanilla Sky for an example of why doing that would be a bad idea.

Frankly, I don't even know what you mean by "Values" because you are using them in reference to pleasure and even most theists wouldn't say that that kind of values are objective.   That's why I thought you were talking about moral values.  Perhaps if you were more clear....

Quote from: Whitney on October 24, 2011, 09:45:38 PM
Frankly, I don't even know what you mean by "Values" because you are using them in reference to pleasure and even most theists wouldn't say that that kind of values are objective.   That's why I thought you were talking about moral values.  Perhaps if you were more clear....

Valuable:  of considerable significance, import, worth, or quality

The discussion of objective/subjective morality is well-trodden ground by this point, but I've always found the discussion of objective/subjective value much more interesting.

An example based on a true exchange from another thread:

"I've made it my purpose to tear down silly superstition"

    "Why do you find that valuable?"

"Are you really asking me why I want to promote reason?"

    "Yes.  Is it objectively valuable, or just valuable to you?"

"Wow, you sure live in a bubble."


Or let's come at this a different way.  If I became an atheist tomorrow, I'd reasonably conclude as part of my new worldview that there is no objective value (though I'm interested in reading Sam Harris at Recusant's recommendation to see the flip side of this).  So what then would be valuable to this one person?  That which causes me the most pleasure (not necessarily the baser kinds, but not ruling that out).

True, there would be a certain theist "residue" that would be screaming that it's valuable to love others, help the poor, care for the sick, visit the prisoner, etc--but as a new atheist that does not believe in the objective value of such activities, I would tamp down this urge and make every effort to follow the path of reason.

Thereafter, I'd use my reason to leverage the latest scientific findings and knowledge of my own preferences to develop a plan to maximize the dopamine production in my lifetime.  What about this approach is non-rational?

and why do you think not having objective value is an atheistic stance?  It's not like all Christians believe in the exact same set of values let alone all theists.

I think the reason objective vs subjective value is never really discussed (outside of philosophy of aesthetics) is because value is inherently subjective.

Quote from: Whitney on October 25, 2011, 12:39:19 AM
I think the reason objective vs subjective value is never really discussed (outside of philosophy of aesthetics) is because value is inherently subjective.

Yes. Otherwise, we wouldn't even be able to buy and sell stuff.

Quote from: Whitney on October 25, 2011, 12:39:19 AM
and why do you think not having objective value is an atheistic stance?  It's not like all Christians believe in the exact same set of values let alone all theists.

I think the reason objective vs subjective value is never really discussed (outside of philosophy of aesthetics) is because value is inherently subjective.

Neither "all Christians" nor "all theists" qualify as a conscious agent that can believe anything.  I was only speaking for the rational point of view I would take if I resolved to be an atheist...

...a point of view you seem to agree with.  Though I hear atheists very commonly--more commonly than I would expect--make bold, sweeping value assertions such as the following:

"I want to do that which will benefit my species"

"We should promote a sustainable environment for future generations"

"The progress of science is essential to a prosperous future"

Subjective?  Really?  If one with an atheist, subjective-value worldview is reasoning clearly, why wouldn't that translate to attempting to maximize the dopamine production of his/her life?

Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 01:02:15 AM
Neither "all Christians" nor "all theists" qualify as a conscious agent that can believe anything.  I was only speaking for the rational point of view I would take if I resolved to be an atheist...

So...theists are irrational?  I don't get what you are saying because you aren't being clear.  I still don't see what "value" has to do with being an atheist (aside from atheists not placing value on the idea of god).

So you're saying being a theist is the only thing that stops you from persuing nothing but pleasure?

Quote from: Xjeepguy on October 25, 2011, 01:12:27 AM
So you're saying being a theist is the only thing that stops you from persuing nothing but pleasure?

That's what I'm getting from reading this thread too... ::)

If atheism= hedonism, then the only thing that's keeping me from that is theism. That's rather disturbing, really. I hope some people always keep their faith if that's the case.

I think where the confusion lies is that there is a thought that we are a different species. We are just people like everyone else, we just don't believe in a god. We have jobs, families, children, friends (both theist and atheist) and we eat the same food. We simply live by our own moral code, not one dictated by religion. We arent going to commit crimes, or do drugs because we dont fear hell. There are alot more theists in prison than atheists, thats a fact.

We are no different than you, other than you follow a god and we dont.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 12:22:24 AM

True, there would be a certain theist "residue" that would be screaming that it's valuable to love others, help the poor, care for the sick, visit the prisoner, etc--but as a new atheist that does not believe in the objective value of such activities, I would tamp down this urge and make every effort to follow the path of reason.

Thereafter, I'd use my reason to leverage the latest scientific findings and knowledge of my own preferences to develop a plan to maximize the dopamine production in my lifetime.  What about this approach is non-rational?

Personally, I don't see why 'loving others, helping the poor, caring for the sick, visiting the prisoner, etc' are remotely inherently theistic values.
My girfriend's an atheist and she does all of the above for a job, because being caring is in her nature and it's important to her. If you just do it because you think some big sky daddy wants you to do it or it will get you into heaven, that's just ridiculous.

I would see theistic values as promoting faith over knowledge or reason, rather than the above. They are philosophical values, not theistic ones. There is no inherent link between that sort of behaviour and believing in a god.

And as other people have already pointed out, your original post does seem to suggest that you've wrongly equated atheism to hedonism or epicurianism.

Personally, I'm very much an epicurian, but that's just my nature. Different atheists will assign different values to different things. Plus some religions would also advocate pleasure as the greatest good too, I'm sure worshippers of Dionysus were pretty hedonistic 2000 years ago.

Just because we don't believe there are any objective values doesn't mean atheists are going to behave in a more self-centred way than a theist. The fact that you think you'd behave that way if it wasn't for your religion does seem to suggest you are naturally self-centred and hedonistic!

Quote from: TFLPersonally, I don't see why 'loving others, helping the poor, caring for the sick, visiting the prisoner, etc' are remotely inherently theistic values.
My girfriend's an atheist and she does all of the above for a job, because being caring is in her nature and it's important to her. If you just do it because you think some big sky daddy wants you to do it or it will get you into heaven, that's just ridiculous.

Agreed.  My wife and I - both atheists - have done volunteer work all our lives.  For the last five years we've been deeply involved with a charity serving disabled people, mainly those with learning difficulties.  As far as I know, most of our volunteers are not christians; certainly I've never heard anyone mention god or going to church.

In general, the charity scene in my area is very active, and I see no sign that religious groups play much of a part.  We have sometimes muttered about the way that church charity events are generally just for church building funds.

So why do we help people if there's no Sky Daddy to inspire us?  Because we can see that's it's a good thing to do.  And if some theist asks me who judges it to be good, I hereby give warning that I shall throw a massive wobbly, even if it gets me banned. ;D

@TFL & Young Git (since I'm older and sillier :P )
I agree with you both profoundly but I need no convincing of your basic decency. Given the historical and current record of theists, I don't think we need to justify any aspect of our lives to them. Rather the contrary, if any of us were that interested.

Right, Attila, but I wasn't justifying myself or showing off my virtue, only pointing out that charitable work does not need to be driven by religion. And in our area, mostly isn't.
That seemed to be the direction the thread was going.  BTW where's b4g gone? ;D

Quote from: OldGit on October 25, 2011, 02:01:31 PM
Right, Attila, but I wasn't justifying myself or showing off my virtue, only pointing out that charitable work does not need to be driven by religion. And in our area, mostly isn't.
That seemed to be the direction the thread was going.  BTW where's b4g gone? ;D

Rather  burning people at the stake or chopping their heads of is more common for them. They seem to love the death penalty. Sister Teresa got her hots off the suffering of her victims.
In fact, I was thinking of posting exactly what TLS was saying, to wit, anything that we would agree is nice did not originate with any theistic tradition. I'm coming to the conclusion that theists are born with a defective morality gene since they feel they would completely run amok without the guidance of a loving shepherd.
B4G was last seen this morning stalking Recusant on some other threads. He (B4G) doesn't seem to care for me very much. Just as well. ;)

Is the sin of a theist worse than that of an atheist? The theist is not only commiting the sin but also ignoring their God. Therefore, sin-for-sin a theist is more evil that an atheist.

Quote from: Tank on October 25, 2011, 02:24:38 PM
Is the sin of a theist worse than that of an atheist? The theist is not only commiting the sin but also ignoring their God. Therefore, sin-for-sin a theist is more evil that an atheist.

That's all very well CareBear but would it fit on a bumper sticker?
How about Theism is sooooooooooooooooooooooo lame......

Quote from: Tank on October 25, 2011, 02:24:38 PM
Is the sin of a theist worse than that of an atheist? The theist is not only commiting the sin but also ignoring their God. Therefore, sin-for-sin a theist is more evil that an atheist.

'Sin', I don't believe in that either. I like Christopher Marlowe's take on it - 'I count religion but a childish toy, and hold there is no sin but ignorance.'

Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 01:02:15 AM
"I want to do that which will benefit my species"

"We should promote a sustainable environment for future generations"

"The progress of science is essential to a prosperous future"

Those ARE all highly subjetive values and goals. Nothing at all wrong with that - especially with trying to reshape your immediate surroundings to suit you better.

QuoteIf one with an atheist, subjective-value worldview is reasoning clearly, why wouldn't that translate to attempting to maximize the dopamine production of his/her life?

Reverse argument. Why would or even should it?

What if dopamine is only a bi-product of achieving what you have in sights..?

And you know what..? You don't usually even need a better reason than "Because I can".

EDIT: a "for instance", I did not go bungee jumping to score adrenalin. I went out of curiosity to experience the sensation of falling off a bridge. Why would I want to experience falling off a bridge? Because I can do it AND do it relatively safely. Adrenalin was a welcome biproduct, but not a gole in itself.

Quote from: Attila on October 25, 2011, 02:14:19 PM

Quote from: OldGit on October 25, 2011, 02:01:31 PM
Right, Attila, but I wasn't justifying myself or showing off my virtue, only pointing out that charitable work does not need to be driven by religion. And in our area, mostly isn't.
That seemed to be the direction the thread was going.  BTW where's b4g gone? ;D

Rather  burning people at the stake or chopping their heads of is more common for them. They seem to love the death penalty.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. The history of Christianity is filled with far more torture, murder and general intolerance than charitable good work.

QuoteIn fact, I was thinking of posting exactly what TLS was saying, to wit, anything that we would agree is nice did not originate with any theistic tradition. I'm coming to the conclusion that theists are born with a defective morality gene since they feel they would completely run amok without the guidance of a loving shepherd.
B4G was last seen this morning stalking Recusant on some other threads. He (B4G) doesn't seem to care for me very much. Just as well. ;)

I totally agree again Attila, some of us don't need a make-believe sky daddy in order to behave well towards our fellow humans.

Quote from: TFLI totally agree again Attila, some of us don't need a make-believe sky daddy in order to behave well towards our fellow humans.

And not just fellow humans, girl humans too. Also kittens and spiders, my 2 favourite non-humans.

Quote from: Attila on October 25, 2011, 02:14:19 PM
He (B4G) doesn't seem to care for me very much. Just as well. ;)

I care for you deeply, Attila.  I would give my life for yours, no exaggeration!  If you ever need anything at all, please send me a personal message and I will do all I can to help.  I had a ton of work to do last night, which is why I signed off.  

Oodles of posts to respond to, so let me try to group them thematically.

Theme 1:  "You are mistakenly equating atheism with hedonism or epicurianism"
Under the umbrella of atheism, I've proposed there are two orientations to "value" or "being of considerable significance, import, worth, or quality".
- Subjective:  value and its calculation thereof is different for each person
- Objective:  one or more things have value in an absolute sense for all people

For the subjective-value atheist, all statements of value can be traced back to pleasure.  Consider the following example of a dutiful recycler:
"I recycle my trash"
   "Why do you value that?"
"It helps the environment"
   "Why do you value that?"
"It makes the world a better place to live for this and future generations"
   "Why do you value that?"
"I feel like I'm doing my part"
   "Why do you value that?"
"Feeling like I'm doing my part makes me feel good"

For the objective-value atheist, some statements of value can be traced to pleasure while others can be traced to linkage with something of objective value.
"I recycle my trash"
   "Why do you value that?"
"It helps the environment"
   "Why do you value that?"
"It makes the world a better place to live for this and future generations"
   "Why do you value that?"
"It's my duty to make the world a better place"
   "Why do you value that?"
"Duty to the world is something of objective/absolute value"
   "So it makes you feel good to do your duty?"
"No, I hate it. I get no pleasure from it before, during, or after.  But through use of my reason, I know it has value."

Where does theism fit in this?  Depends on the theist.  Many Evangelical Christians contend that the old, subjective-value hardware is replaced with new, God-value hardware upon becoming a Christian.  In this way, a born-again Christian is able to make decisions (but doesn't always, not by a long shot!) that are both of value to the Christian (pleasure) AND of objective value to God.

Theme 2:  "I don't see why 'loving others, helping the poor, caring for the sick, visiting the prisoner, etc' are valuable exclusively to theists."
Theists see these things as having objective value--that is, having considerable significance, import, worth, or quality in an absolute sense.  I'm coming to learn that some atheists may believe the same, though I'm still not sure what objective taxonomy of value they are referring to when they believe that.

For the subjective-value atheist, these things are (consciously or not) a path to pleasure.
"I give to the poor"
   "Why do you value that?"
"It makes me feel good"

Theme 3:  "So being a theist is the only thing that prevents you from pursuing only pleasure?"
Short answer is yes.  I am capable of producing no objective value on my own--I'm an insignificant grain of sand in the dune of humankind, let alone in the universe!  So rationally, I would turn my perspective on value inward, resolving to dicover how to maximize my dopamine production which not eroding my dopamine receptors.

But the alternative, modeling my life after the One who produced the most value of any person who ever lived, gives me a way to produce real, objective value.

Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 25, 2011, 03:24:13 PM
{snip}
I totally agree again Attila, some of us don't need a make-believe sky daddy in order to behave well towards our fellow humans.

I agree as well. I've met many nice atheists on forums and in real life. That doesn't mean all atheists are nice, some are really, really, really nasty. So atheists are just like everybody else, vast majority are nice people and some are complete arseholes. No God required, as usual.

QuoteI care for you deeply, Attila.  I would give my life for yours, no exaggeration!  If you ever need anything at all, please send me a personal message and I will do all I can to help.  I had a ton of work to do last night, which is why I signed off. 

Thanks for the kind words, Bandit and the even kinder offer. Appearances notwithstanding, I'm actually doing rather well. Growing old is not as bad as I thought it would be in spite of the aches and pains and the odd (=occasional) heart operation.
But enough of this. I'll let you get back to your serious work.  :)

Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 25, 2011, 03:24:13 PM
I totally agree again Attila, some of us don't need a make-believe sky daddy in order to behave well towards our fellow humans.

If I remember right, this was turning up in another thread about human nature.  From what I've read, a tendency to care about other people, other creatures and the future is built into our nature -- most humans can't not care, and the individuals who don't are a tiny minority.  People can dress up caring as part of a religion, but that's just their personal preference -- it can also be dressed up as part of politics or philosophy or what have you.  Atheist or theist, we care because it's part of our animal nature.  

Having a capacity for empathy and a conscience doesn't seem to be a specifically human trait, it's one that can be found to some degree in a number of different animals and not just other primates.  My guess is that it's linked to intelligence, since the more intelligent a species is in general, the more likely the behaviors that indicate empathy and caring become.

A bit of trivia: animal behaviorists ran an experiment with chimps in which, if one member of a group accepted food, that would cause the suffering of another member. Guess what happened? The chimp chose not to take the food, so as not to harm the other. Simplistically selfish nature?

Does the chimp have god in his heart?  :o

If you're interested, research mirror neurons, which do play a role in creating empathy, since it causes the brain to simulate what another brain might be doing or feeling. It's putting yourself in another's shoes.

As for objective values, the consequences ones actions on a larger group is objective. If you harm another person, the extent of that action isn't contained just in your subjectivity, and most  people, after giving it a moment of thought, will realise that actions have consequences beyond their subjective world (even though some take a bit longer to realise this, or just don't care).

For some, it's an objective law giver and judger or actions and thoughts, for others, it's the consequences on another who they don't want to see harmed. Whatever.

Though I do find it disturbing that you (and certain other religious people) say, that if it weren't for your theistic values, you'd be out there harming others with no restraint. Says quite a bit about you...

(I've located one such person, and he really does disturb me)

Out of all that baggage of words, here's where I think you're making mistakes:

Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 04:08:37 PM
Under the umbrella of atheism, I've proposed there are two orientations to "value" or "being of considerable significance, import, worth, or quality".

You've chosen to ignore it, but it's already been pointed out that "atheist" has no inherent value, it's merely a descriptive term like "blue-eyed".

QuoteI am capable of producing no objective value on my own

Objective or subjective, you and every other human being are the only ones who do "produce values".  We've been doing it since we crawled out of the primodial ooze.  Some people may call a set of values religion and claim an all-powerful being is behind it to make it sound more compelling, but we're the ones doing it.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 04:08:37 PMTheme 1:  "You are mistakenly equating atheism with hedonism or epicurianism"
Under the umbrella of atheism, I've proposed there are two orientations to "value" or "being of considerable significance, import, worth, or quality".
- Subjective:  value and its calculation thereof is different for each person
- Objective:  one or more things have value in an absolute sense for all people
For the subjective-value atheist, all statements of value can be traced back to pleasure.  Consider the following example of a dutiful recycler:

A wholly wrong assumption. Not all people are driven by pleasure, and not everything people do is related to pleasure / making themselves feel good . Work is the prime example. I work in my job because I need to put a roof over my head, food on the table and pay my bills. I get absolutely no pleasure from it!

Quote
"I recycle my trash"
    "Why do you value that?"
"It helps the environment"
    "Why do you value that?"
"It makes the world a better place to live for this and future generations"
    "Why do you value that?"
"I feel like I'm doing my part"
    "Why do you value that?"
"Feeling like I'm doing my part makes me feel good"

For the objective-value atheist, some statements of value can be traced to pleasure while others can be traced to linkage with something of objective value.
"I recycle my trash"
    "Why do you value that?"
"It helps the environment"
    "Why do you value that?"
"It makes the world a better place to live for this and future generations"
    "Why do you value that?"
"It's my duty to make the world a better place"
    "Why do you value that?"
"Duty to the world is something of objective/absolute value"
    "So it makes you feel good to do your duty?"
"No, I hate it. I get no pleasure from it before, during, or after.  But through use of my reason, I know it has value."

I think you're wrong again. I recycle but I don't fall into either of the above divisions. I do it because I can see that it's a sensible logical thing to do. It doesn't make me feel good or give me pleasure, nor do I ascribe any absolute objective value to it. I'm not planning on having any children and I won't be here in 100 years time so the future state of the environment won't affect me. It just seems a sensible thing to do, and it's not much effort on my part.

QuoteFor the subjective-value atheist, these things are (consciously or not) a path to pleasure.
"I give to the poor"
    "Why do you value that?"
"It makes me feel good"

I think you're wholly wrong in that assumption. Some people are just caring by nature. They don't do it to make themselves feel good. Just because you're not naturally so caring, it doesn't mean others aren't.

Quote
Theme 3:  "So being a theist is the only thing that prevents you from pursuing only pleasure?"
Short answer is yes.  I am capable of producing no objective value on my own--I'm an insignificant grain of sand in the dune of humankind, let alone in the universe!  So rationally, I would turn my perspective on value inward, resolving to dicover how to maximize my dopamine production which not eroding my dopamine receptors.
But the alternative, modeling my life after the One who produced the most value of any person who ever lived, gives me a way to produce real, objective value.

But all of the above is subjective! In my eyes you're modelling yourself around a mythical figure who never existed, and a religion that has produced more death and human suffering than possibly any other ideology in human history. Maybe you value what you feel you gain from your religion so much because you're not naturally that way inclined.

I also think we could turn your argument back on you and say that you only believe in your god, religion and 'modeling your life after the one who produced the most value of any person who ever lived', and believe there are 'real, objective values' because doing so makes you feel good and gives you pleasure!

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 25, 2011, 04:31:42 PM
A bit of trivia: animal behaviorists ran an experiment with chimps in which, if one member of a group accepted food, that would cause the suffering of another member. Guess what happened? The chimp chose not to take the food, so as not to harm the other. Simplistically selfish nature?

Does the chimp have god in his heart?  :o

If you're interested, research mirror neurons, which do play a role in creating empathy, since it causes the brain to simulate what another brain might be doing or feeling. It's putting yourself in another's shoes.

This is simply the same as saying, "The brain experiences stress when directly observing another suffer and pleasure when directly observing another have pleasure".  In what way is this germane to the consideration of value?

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 25, 2011, 04:38:42 PM
Objective or subjective, you and every other human being are the only ones who do "produce values".  We've been doing it since we crawled out of the primodial ooze.  Some people may call a set of values religion and claim an all-powerful being is behind it to make it sound more compelling, but we're the ones doing it.

I've noticed several folks have used the term "values" a few times.  Let's not confuse a loaded term like "values" (with a contextual meaning of "maxims", "dictates", or "principles") with the way I'm using value--considerable significance, import, worth, or quality.

Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 25, 2011, 05:32:49 PM

I think you're wrong again. I recycle but I don't fall into either of the above divisions. I do it because I can see that it's a sensible logical thing to do. It doesn't make me feel good or give me pleasure, nor do I ascribe any absolute objective value to it. I'm not planning on having any children and I won't be here in 100 years time so the future state of the environment won't affect me. It just seems a sensible thing to do, and it's not much effort on my part.

Why do you value sensibility?  :)

Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 25, 2011, 05:32:49 PMSome people are just caring by nature.

What does this practically mean if not, "the reward center of their brain is activated by caring"?

Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 25, 2011, 05:32:49 PM
I also think we could turn your argument back on you and say that you only believe in your god, religion and 'modeling your life after the one who produced the most value of any person who ever lived', and believe there are 'real, objective values' because doing so makes you feel good and gives you pleasure!

Yes, you could.  The only argument I'd have against it is trying to persuade you that before I was Christian, I was subjectively defining value and living accordingly; after becoming a Christian, I have been able to produce objective value and realize a joy that goes beyond biological.

For this reason, I'm thinking hard about the usefulness of my being a part of this forum.  If we were in closer proximity, I could convince you through acts of love and expressions of joy that I'm a very different b4g than I was before.  Over time, you'd see my actions as definitively different and unnatural from the way I used to naturally act and become convinced that my transformation was much more than mental and not motivated by any expectation of reward.  In this forum, however, I have only words.  Words can offer some love, but nothing compared to actions... so we'll always encounter this impasse, I'm afraid, where all I can do is assert that I am able to produce an objective value and derive joy from it that is neither biologically-derived nor my subjective creation.

You're making it sound as if how you experience your values is not biologically based. You might want to clarify that, it's causing confusion, for me at least.

Quote
This is simply the same as saying, "The brain experiences stress when directly observing another suffer and pleasure when directly observing another have pleasure".  In what way is this germane to the consideration of value?

It ties to the objective value (not wanting another to suffer, even if that means a personal loss such as not eating) based on how the brain works and the subjective experience it causes. I doubt a chimp would think rationally about why it does this or project their feelings onto an objective being. Some just do it, without the need for philosophical debates on why it would be objectively valuable to want to minimize another of its kin's suffering over its own selfish desires. Does value only exist for beings able to think more or less rationally?

Also, doing good because it makes one feel good is also a selfish act, but which has good demonstrable objective consequences. Give all your belongings to the poor, and work for your bare minimum so that you can help someone you don't even know and then we'll talk about it not being selfish or without any reward in mind...

(Not that doing good things for biologically selfish reasons is a bad thing, that's not what I'm saying-selfishness can be very powerful if used correctly ;))

Answer honestly, if you knew (say the religious figure you emulate came down himself and told you) that you would go to hell, even after the life you've led thus far and that nothing you could do would change that, would you still value your values?

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 25, 2011, 06:22:48 PM
You're making it sound as if how you experience your values is not biologically based. You might want to clarify that, it's causing confusion, for me at least.

Quote
This is simply the same as saying, "The brain experiences stress when directly observing another suffer and pleasure when directly observing another have pleasure".  In what way is this germane to the consideration of value?

It ties to the objective value (not wanting another to suffer, even if that means a personal loss such as not eating) based on how the brain works and the subjective experience it causes. I doubt a chimp would think rationally about why it does this or project their feelings onto an objective being. Some just do it, without the need for philosophical debates on why it would be objectively valuable to want to minimize another of its kin's suffering over its own selfish desires. Does value only exist for beings able to think more or less rationally?

Also, doing good because it makes one feel good is also a selfish act, but which has good demonstrable objective consequences. Give all your belongings to the poor, and work for your bare minimum so that you can help someone you don't even know and then we'll talk about it not being selfish or without any reward in mind...

(Not that doing good things for biologically selfish reasons is a bad thing, that's not what I'm saying-selfishness can be very powerful if used correctly ;))

Answer honestly, if you knew (say the religious figure you emulate came down himself and told you) that you would go to hell, even after the life you've led thus far and that nothing you could do would change that, would you still value your values?

Love this post.  Now you're thinking, gang!

However, I'm seeing the term "values" crop up again.  If, by this, you mean "that which is valuable" (objective) or "that which one considers valuable" (subjective), we can proceed.  Usually "values" is used to mean "maxims" or "principles", which would be something different.

QuoteYou're making it sound as if how you experience your values is not biologically based. You might want to clarify that, it's causing confusion, for me at least.

The joy I experience is not biologically based--there is no dopamine production involved, no strictly physical "feeling" such as I get when I eat, have sex, or learn something cool.  It can only be described as a deep, profound connectedness, some sort of meta-feeling in the conscious self that is at once awe, peace, bliss... I know it sounds incredibly cooky, but words just aren't fit for purpose in this case.

QuoteIt ties to the objective value (not wanting another to suffer, even if that means a personal loss such as not eating) based on how the brain works and the subjective experience it causes. I doubt a chimp would think rationally about why it does this or project their feelings onto an objective being. Some just do it, without the need for philosophical debates on why it would be objectively valuable to want to minimize another of its kin's suffering over its own selfish desires. Does value only exist for beings able to think more or less rationally?

The bolded portion above is giving a lot of credit to the monkey... again, aren't we simply saying that observing stress causes stress (which Mr. Monkey wants to avoid) and observing pleasure causes pleasure (which Mr. Monkey wants to do, unless he's learned he can get more pleasure by doing something else).

QuoteAlso, doing good because it makes one feel good is also a selfish act, but which has good demonstrable objective consequences. Give all your belongings to the poor, and work for your bare minimum so that you can help someone you don't even know and then we'll talk about it not being selfish or without any reward in mind...

Would you become a theist if I did?  If so, send me a personal message and we should talk.

QuoteAnswer honestly, if you knew (say the religious figure you emulate came down himself and told you) that you would go to hell, even after the life you've led thus far and that nothing you could do would change that, would you still value your values?

One of my favorite questions.  This is the case of Job, is it not?  In this ultimate experiment of theism, Job was put through hell to determine if belief in God and obedience to Him is mercenary.  I hope my response would be the same as his:

  At this, Job got up and tore his robe and shaved his head. Then he fell to the ground in worship and said:

  "Naked I came from my mother's womb,
  and naked I will depart.
  The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away;
  may the name of the LORD be praised."

  In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 06:03:35 PM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 25, 2011, 04:31:42 PM

Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 25, 2011, 05:32:49 PM

I think you're wrong again. I recycle but I don't fall into either of the above divisions. I do it because I can see that it's a sensible logical thing to do. It doesn't make me feel good or give me pleasure, nor do I ascribe any absolute objective value to it. I'm not planning on having any children and I won't be here in 100 years time so the future state of the environment won't affect me. It just seems a sensible thing to do, and it's not much effort on my part.

Why do you value sensibility?  :)

because it seems sensible to  ;)

Quote

Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 25, 2011, 05:32:49 PMSome people are just caring by nature.

What does this practically mean if not, "the reward center of their brain is activated by caring"?

I really don't think that comes into it. It seems to me some people are just naturally caring, just as some are violent or some are shy. I guess it's the way their brain's wired. I'm naturally shy, i get no pleasure from being shy, in fact I find it a total pain in the arse. I think some people are naturally caring in the same way.

Quote

Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 25, 2011, 05:32:49 PM
I also think we could turn your argument back on you and say that you only believe in your god, religion and 'modeling your life after the one who produced the most value of any person who ever lived', and believe there are 'real, objective values' because doing so makes you feel good and gives you pleasure!

Yes, you could.  The only argument I'd have against it is trying to persuade you that before I was Christian, I was subjectively defining value and living accordingly; after becoming a Christian, I have been able to produce objective value and realize a joy that goes beyond biological.

For this reason, I'm thinking hard about the usefulness of my being a part of this forum.  If we were in closer proximity, I could convince you through acts of love and expressions of joy that I'm a very different b4g than I was before.  Over time, you'd see my actions as definitively different and unnatural from the way I used to naturally act and become convinced that my transformation was much more than mental and not motivated by any expectation of reward.  In this forum, however, I have only words.  Words can offer some love, but nothing compared to actions... so we'll always encounter this impasse, I'm afraid, where all I can do is assert that I am able to produce an objective value and derive joy from it that is neither biologically-derived nor my subjective creation.

Obviously I don't believe there is such a thing as 'objective value', so I think you're just kidding yourself.  What are these 'objective values' and how can you prove to me that they exist, and aren't just you assigning the word 'objective' to values I consider subjective.

I also still think your argument can be fully turned on you. The reward centres of your brain are now activated by your belief in god and everything that comes with that, which has replaced whatever you relied on before your conversion. There are plenty of ex-alcoholics and drug addicts that have gone on to get religion, and I think there's a good reason for that!

Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 06:48:04 PM
Would you become a theist if I did?  If so, send me a personal message and we should talk.

You've said this kind of thing a few times and it does have an unsavoury ring of proselytising

Quote
One of my favorite questions.  This is the case of Job, is it not?  In this ultimate experiment of theism, Job was put through hell to determine if belief in God and obedience to Him is mercenary.  I hope my response would be the same as his:

But Job is just a story, thankfully it never actually happened! And I'm sure it was written to try and promote the kind of blind allegiance to the faith that you're professing.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 06:03:35 PM
I've noticed several folks have used the term "values" a few times.  Let's not confuse a loaded term like "values" (with a contextual meaning of "maxims", "dictates", or "principles") with the way I'm using value--considerable significance, import, worth, or quality.

You're sidestepping the point -- value or values, subjective or objective, humans create them.

QuoteThe joy I experience is not biologically based

How would you know?  Have you run tests on yourself at these times?  Because there are scientists who have run tests on people at such times and they did find a biological basis for the experience, even wrote a book about it (called Why God Won't Go Away, significantly enough).

QuoteIt can only be described as a deep, profound connectedness, some sort of meta-feeling in the conscious self that is at once awe, peace, bliss... I know it sounds incredibly cooky, but words just aren't fit for purpose in this case.

It's not "kooky" at all, it's exactly the sort of experience the above mentioned scientists found a biological basis for.

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 25, 2011, 07:11:32 PM

Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 06:03:35 PM
The joy I experience is not biologically based

How would you know?  Have you run tests on yourself at these times?  Because there are scientists who have run tests on people at such times and they did find a biological basis for the experience, even wrote a book about it (called Why God Won't Go Away, significantly enough).

I'd be quite interested in reading the book, so thanks for the recommendation!  I'll note that observing biological changes is different that finding these experiences are biologically-based.  The interface between brain (physical-stuff) and consciousness (mind-stuff) is not clear, and the joy I'm describing is consciousness-based.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 07:25:55 PM
and the joy I'm describing is consciousness-based.

Again, how do you know?  Particularly is the interface is not clear?

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 25, 2011, 07:35:41 PM

Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 07:25:55 PM
and the joy I'm describing is consciousness-based.

Again, how do you know?  Particularly is the interface is not clear?

Exactly. This sort of rubbish wouldn't stand up in a court of law, let alone to scientific scrutiny.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 07:25:55 PM
The interface between brain (physical-stuff) and consciousness (mind-stuff) is not clear, and the joy I'm describing is consciousness-based.

Uh...

Brain is the organ producing and maintaining your consciousness through electric impulses and chemical reactions. We may not understand many things about the workings of the brain, but that's no reason to attribute consciousness to something else.

To dumb it down a bit, the "mind stuff" is a direct product of the "physical stuff".

Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 06:48:04 PM
Love this post.  Now you're thinking, gang!

However, I'm seeing the term "values" crop up again.  If, by this, you mean "that which is valuable" (objective) or "that which one considers valuable" (subjective), we can proceed.  Usually "values" is used to mean "maxims" or "principles", which would be something different.

Well then you're talking about the values which only a being that can rationalise things would be capable of...

Quote

QuoteYou're making it sound as if how you experience your values is not biologically based. You might want to clarify that, it's causing confusion, for me at least.

The joy I experience is not biologically based--there is no dopamine production involved, no strictly physical "feeling" such as I get when I eat, have sex, or learn something cool.  It can only be described as a deep, profound connectedness, some sort of meta-feeling in the conscious self that is at once awe, peace, bliss... I know it sounds incredibly cooky, but words just aren't fit for purpose in this case.

A lot of heavy-weight scientists would disagree with you there, the experience of pleasure from everything from learning, to using drugs to eating is influenced by dopamine (it isn't called the reward neurotransmissor for nothing) and animals are reward seeking machines by nature (which doesn't mean that pleasure is all that we seek, there are survival necessities as well etc.

You are not conscious of your dopamine release during certain activities, so why do you say that it isn't biologically based when you don't even know? Because you don't like reductionism or neurochemistry just seems like it couldn't possibly generate experience?

Quote

QuoteAlso, doing good because it makes one feel good is also a selfish act, but which has good demonstrable objective consequences. Give all your belongings to the poor, and work for your bare minimum so that you can help someone you don't even know and then we'll talk about it not being selfish or without any reward in mind...

Would you become a theist if I did?  If so, send me a personal message and we should talk.

No need, talk isn't exactly doing...

(I respect people who do, because they actually walk the walk...)

Quote

QuoteAnswer honestly, if you knew (say the religious figure you emulate came down himself and told you) that you would go to hell, even after the life you've led thus far and that nothing you could do would change that, would you still value your values?

One of my favorite questions.  This is the case of Job, is it not?  In this ultimate experiment of theism, Job was put through hell to determine if belief in God and obedience to Him is mercenary.  I hope my response would be the same as his:

  At this, Job got up and tore his robe and shaved his head. Then he fell to the ground in worship and said:

  "Naked I came from my mother's womb,
  and naked I will depart.
  The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away;
  may the name of the LORD be praised."

  In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing.

I leave it to the better informed to pick apart that story and it's moral teaching.

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 25, 2011, 07:35:41 PM

Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 07:25:55 PM
and the joy I'm describing is consciousness-based.

Again, how do you know?  Particularly is the interface is not clear?

The interface is not clear, not even close.  I've worked through this problem, and it's nearly inexplicable to me how a brain set in its ways could make such a remarkable shift in how it derives pleasure and what the pleasure feels like.

My brain was quite set in its ways.  How does a Spanish person with no access to the English language teach himself English?  In the same way, how could a brain set in its ways learn an entirely different taxonomy of objective value (and joy derived therefrom) without having access to it?  I conclude that it must have been some beautiful intervention by God.  Again, difficult to describe here and I'm unable to show you how real this is through sincere acts of love I wasn't capable of beforehand.

Quote from: Asmodean on October 25, 2011, 07:43:12 PM

Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 07:25:55 PM
The interface between brain (physical-stuff) and consciousness (mind-stuff) is not clear, and the joy I'm describing is consciousness-based.

To dumb it down a bit, the "mind stuff" is a direct product of the "physical stuff".

Sam Harris, and other notables, seem to disagree (special thanks to Ecurb for these).
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness/
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness-ii/

Is your conjecture a product of observable science or your philosophical filter?

Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 08:02:06 PM
I've worked through this problem, and it's nearly inexplicable to me how a brain set in its ways could make such a remarkable shift in how it derives pleasure and what the pleasure feels like.

I don't think "inexplicable to you" means "it can't happen without supernatural interference".

QuoteHow does a Spanish person with no access to the English language teach himself English?  In the same way, how could a brain set in its ways learn an entirely different taxonomy of objective value (and joy derived therefrom) without having access to it?  I conclude that it must have been some beautiful intervention by God. 

I think you're seriously under-rating the brain.  What would be wrong, or devalued, or whatever, if your religious experience were biologically based?  Do you interpret that as meaning it wouldn't be real?  Even the authors of Why God Won't Go Away, which did establish that these experiences are biologically based, didn't suggest that they weren't real.

QuoteAgain, difficult to describe here and I'm unable to show you how real this is through sincere acts of love I wasn't capable of beforehand.

"Acts of love" dependent on the presence of a supernatural task master.  I prefer the kind that come from human nature.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 08:02:06 PM

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 25, 2011, 07:35:41 PM

Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 07:25:55 PM
and the joy I'm describing is consciousness-based.

Again, how do you know?  Particularly is the interface is not clear?

The interface is not clear, not even close.  I've worked through this problem, and it's nearly inexplicable to me how a brain set in its ways could make such a remarkable shift in how it derives pleasure and what the pleasure feels like.

My brain was quite set in its ways.  How does a Spanish person with no access to the English language teach himself English?  In the same way, how could a brain set in its ways learn an entirely different taxonomy of objective value (and joy derived therefrom) without having access to it?  I conclude that it must have been some beautiful intervention by God.  Again, difficult to describe here and I'm unable to show you how real this is through sincere acts of love I wasn't capable of beforehand.

Quote from: Asmodean on October 25, 2011, 07:43:12 PM

Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 07:25:55 PM
The interface between brain (physical-stuff) and consciousness (mind-stuff) is not clear, and the joy I'm describing is consciousness-based.

To dumb it down a bit, the "mind stuff" is a direct product of the "physical stuff".

Sam Harris, and other notables, seem to disagree (special thanks to Ecurb for these).
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness/
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness-ii/

Is your conjecture a product of observable science or your philosophical filter?

b4g
Now we have witnessing. You really are pushing your luck.
Tank

Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 08:02:06 PM
Is your conjecture a product of observable science or your philosophical filter?

Quite observable science. I'll give you a small "for instance": damaging the areas of the brain also damages the parts of consciousness for which they are responsible, such as memory, senses and the like.

A human brain is good at rerouting, but it is still not hard to demonstrate and verify that relation, nor is it too hard to demonstrate and verify a whole mess of relations between the physical workings of the brain and what we percieve to be the mental workings of consciousness.

That said, I do not filter my inputs and outputs through philosophy unless it is required. In this case, it is not.

I give up trying to understand where b4g is coming from....it's probably some jumbled up and failed attempt at converting us all.

Quote from: Whitney on October 25, 2011, 09:02:25 PM
I give up trying to understand where b4g is coming from....it's probably some jumbled up and failed attempt at converting us all.

So failed, in fact, that if it is such an attempt, I can not see it...  ???

Quote from: Whitney on October 25, 2011, 09:02:25 PM
I give up trying to understand where b4g is coming from....it's probably some jumbled up and failed attempt at converting us all.

I have never understood a single thing he/she has said since he/she joined. All posts made always seemed to come back to the same topic no matter what the OP was about.

Quote from: Whitney on October 25, 2011, 09:02:25 PM
I give up trying to understand where b4g is coming from....it's probably some jumbled up and failed attempt at converting us all.

I've been thinking exactly the same thing.

Quote from: Crow on October 25, 2011, 09:36:56 PM

Quote from: Whitney on October 25, 2011, 09:02:25 PM
I give up trying to understand where b4g is coming from....it's probably some jumbled up and failed attempt at converting us all.

I have never understood a single thing he/she has said since he/she joined. All posts made always seemed to come back to the same topic no matter what the OP was about.

A lot of stuff about animals and values, whoops sorry, value defined in a way that my simple mind can't understand. I had the impression that our friend believes that we are not animals in the biological sense but belong to a different category of beings. I would have thought that strong similarities in DNA between us and, say, chimps (2,7% difference) would be suggestive of something but then the big guy says it don't work that way. I'm curious though if Homo (sapiens) neanderthalensis qualified as an animal. With at least a 99,5% similarity in genomes that seems pretty close but the big guy wiped them all out (did they even get onto the arc?). Big question then: animal or not-animal? We'll never know.

And value....  ??? Beyond having fun, nothing else matters but there are many ways of having fun.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 06:48:04 PM
The joy I experience is not biologically based--there is no dopamine production involved, no strictly physical "feeling" such as I get when I eat, have sex, or learn something cool.  It can only be described as a deep, profound connectedness, some sort of meta-feeling in the conscious self that is at once awe, peace, bliss... I know it sounds incredibly cooky, but words just aren't fit for purpose in this case.

Given a quiet place and a few minutes to meditate and this atheist can conjure up those same feelings - no deity required. It's all neurochemistry.

Quote from: Velma on October 26, 2011, 10:15:41 AM
Given a quiet place and a few minutes to meditate and this atheist can conjure up those same feelings - no deity required. It's all neurochemistry.

Please Velma, neurochemistry and kittens
Nothing beats the lovingkindness of the people of fur.

Quote from: Attila on October 26, 2011, 10:49:09 AM

Quote from: Velma on October 26, 2011, 10:15:41 AM
Given a quiet place and a few minutes to meditate and this atheist can conjure up those same feelings - no deity required. It's all neurochemistry.

Please Velma, neurochemistry and kittens
Nothing beats the lovingkindness of the people of fur.

Velma is a cat owner (house maid), she knows the routine  ;D

Quote from: Attila on October 26, 2011, 06:33:17 AM
And value....  ??? Beyond having fun, nothing else matters but there are many ways of having fun.

I couldn't agree more, I'll raise another glass of wine to your epicurian wisdom later this evening  :D

Quote from: Tank on October 26, 2011, 11:58:30 AM

Quote from: Attila on October 26, 2011, 10:49:09 AM

Quote from: Velma on October 26, 2011, 10:15:41 AM
Given a quiet place and a few minutes to meditate and this atheist can conjure up those same feelings - no deity required. It's all neurochemistry.

Please Velma, neurochemistry and kittens
Nothing beats the lovingkindness of the people of fur.

Velma is a cat owner (house maid), she knows the routine  ;D

Cant believe I forgot the kittens!  I am part of the staff for three indoor cats and a varying number of strays and ferals who find food and shelter on/under our back deck.

I would love to have a kitten, but I don't think my dog would approve.  :(

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 26, 2011, 07:19:55 PM
I would love to have a kitten, but I don't think my dog would approve.  :(

Of course your dog would approve! I expect it would like some live food for a change  ;D

Quote from: Tank on October 26, 2011, 07:30:20 PM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 26, 2011, 07:19:55 PM
I would love to have a kitten, but I don't think my dog would approve.  :(

Of course your dog would approve! I expect it would like some live food for a change  ;D

Heh, didn't expect that play on words. ;D

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 26, 2011, 07:19:55 PM
I would love to have a kitten, but I don't think my dog would approve.  :(

I can witness through personal experience that dogs may coexist with cats. (Didn't some US president once say that? Well, nevertheless it's true). I give you the example of Icaro (the dog) and Numa (the cat). It only works though if the cat is there first. Please remove dog. Insert cat. Then reinsert dog and you'll be fine.

I used to have trouble just getting the cat out of the dog.  :'(

Quote from: Attila on October 26, 2011, 10:49:09 AM

Quote from: Velma on October 26, 2011, 10:15:41 AM
Given a quiet place and a few minutes to meditate and this atheist can conjure up those same feelings - no deity required. It's all neurochemistry.

Please Velma, neurochemistry and kittens
Nothing beats the lovingkindness of the people of fur.

And puppies.  Make no mistake, I'm a true blue cat lover but dogs are adorable and sympatico.

Miss my cat :( Wish I could convince the landlord here to let me have one. Cats have a way of making you feel better when you are stressed or not feeling well.

Quote from: Attila on October 26, 2011, 08:00:44 PM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 26, 2011, 07:19:55 PM
I would love to have a kitten, but I don't think my dog would approve.  :(

I can witness through personal experience that dogs may coexist with cats. (Didn't some US president once say that? Well, nevertheless it's true). I give you the example of Icaro (the dog) and Numa (the cat). It only works though if the cat is there first. Please remove dog. Insert cat. Then reinsert dog and you'll be fine.

I'm sure my dog would get along fine with a cat after the initial wary suspicion, I just wouldn't leave her alone with one (maybe more for her sake rather than the cat's ;)). She's a big, silly and clumsy German Shepard, and can certainly fit an entire kitten in her mouth, but a docile one and has never hurt a fly.  

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 27, 2011, 01:57:07 AM
[And puppies.  Make no mistake, I'm a true blue cat lover but dogs are adorable and sympatico.

How about a pet fox? They look a bit like feline-ish dogs...

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.telegraph.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F01298%2Fpet-fox_1298131i.jpg&hash=fa05bc6fdcc7eab50b4283f0ecec08105459b383)

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscienceblogs.com%2Fthoughtfulanimal%2F2010%2F06%2F24%2Fdomestic%2520fox.jpg&hash=adc2551b1d729cd146580c9eee4825ce48960c3e)

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 27, 2011, 02:43:45 AM
How about a pet fox? They look a bit like feline-ish dogs...

I understand they've been experimenting in Russia with domesticating foxes, and it's going much faster then any of them expected.  Foxes are beyond cute (in fact, I think they could win a cute war with lambs) but I'm a little unsettled about detaching another species from the wild.

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 27, 2011, 06:10:31 AM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 27, 2011, 02:43:45 AM
How about a pet fox? They look a bit like feline-ish dogs...

I understand they've been experimenting in Russia with domesticating foxes, and it's going much faster then any of them expected.  Foxes are beyond cute (in fact, I think they could win a cute war with lambs) but I'm a little unsettled about detaching another species from the wild.

Domesticated silver fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox)

There was a facsinating TV programme about it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbcwDXhugjw

One would not be 'detaching' another species from the wild, as long as there was the wild population remains.

Quote from: Tank on October 27, 2011, 09:47:15 AM
One would not be 'detaching' another species from the wild, as long as there was the wild population remains.

True, but I'm still not comfortable with domesticating another species.  Domestication of other animals has always worked out well for us, but the domesticated animals really get the short end of the stick.

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 28, 2011, 02:40:27 AM
Domestication of other animals has always worked out well for us, but the domesticated animals really get the short end of the stick.

I don't know...dogs and cats seem to have the life; or perhaps my family just spoils our pets they are treated like furry children.

Quote from: Whitney on October 28, 2011, 04:36:48 AM

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 28, 2011, 02:40:27 AM
Domestication of other animals has always worked out well for us, but the domesticated animals really get the short end of the stick.

I don't know...dogs and cats seem to have the life; or perhaps my family just spoils our pets they are treated like furry children.

This^

If you compare how well pets survive compared to their ancestors and close species family members, they certainly didn't get the short end of the stick.

SHOCK! HORROR! The fundamental rule and purpose of life NOW REVEALED!
Cats don't ask; cats take.
Ask any cat owner for confirmation.
Humans are a necessary inconvenience.

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 28, 2011, 02:40:27 AM

Quote from: Tank on October 27, 2011, 09:47:15 AM
One would not be 'detaching' another species from the wild, as long as there was the wild population remains.

True, but I'm still not comfortable with domesticating another species.  Domestication of other animals has always worked out well for us, but the domesticated animals really get the short end of the stick.

Now that's a very interesting point! As we are just vehicles for the reproduction of our genes; which would be considered the most successful species the Timber Wolf or the domestic dog? The dog by far. The symbiotic relationship that the dog has with humans has spread its genome all over the planet. The same could be said for horses, cattle, sheep, goats, chickens etc. In the genetic lottery a genome couldn't win a better prize than being domesticated IMHO. 

Quote from: Tank on October 28, 2011, 09:47:41 AM
Now that's a very interesting point! As we are just vehicles for the reproduction of our genes; which would be considered the most successful species the Timber Wolf or the domestic dog? The dog by far. The symbiotic relationship that the dog has with humans has spread its genome all over the planet. The same could be said for horses, cattle, sheep, goats, chickens etc. In the genetic lottery a genome couldn't win a better prize than being domesticated IMHO. 

Genetically successful as far as numbers go, but at what cost in quality of life?  There's a breed of dog (can't remember which one, I think one of the bulldogs) who've been so tweaked by humans they can't give birth naturally anymore, some woman in the US has deliberately bred cats with a mutation that makes it impossible for them to walk on their forepaws because she thinks that's cute, and I don't even want to get into factory farm animals. 

There's a Halloween carnival I see on my way home from work that has ponies rides for little kids -- great for the kids, but the ponies spend all day long walking around in a circle.  I think I treat my Deirdre pretty well -- fresh water and healthy food she likes the taste of, litter box kept clean, medical care whenever she needs it, free run of the apartment, plenty of toys and I spend plenty of time playing with her.  I sure wouldn't exchange my lifestyle for hers, tho, or any other domesticated animal.  I can't help thinking the animals we've domesticated would have been better off left in the wild.

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 29, 2011, 02:45:50 AM

Quote from: Tank on October 28, 2011, 09:47:41 AM
Now that's a very interesting point! As we are just vehicles for the reproduction of our genes; which would be considered the most successful species the Timber Wolf or the domestic dog? The dog by far. The symbiotic relationship that the dog has with humans has spread its genome all over the planet. The same could be said for horses, cattle, sheep, goats, chickens etc. In the genetic lottery a genome couldn't win a better prize than being domesticated IMHO. 

Genetically successful as far as numbers go, but at what cost in quality of life?  There's a breed of dog (can't remember which one, I think one of the bulldogs) who've been so tweaked by humans they can't give birth naturally anymore, some woman in the US has deliberately bred cats with a mutation that makes it impossible for them to walk on their forepaws because she thinks that's cute, and I don't even want to get into factory farm animals. 

There's a Halloween carnival I see on my way home from work that has ponies rides for little kids -- great for the kids, but the ponies spend all day long walking around in a circle.  I think I treat my Deirdre pretty well -- fresh water and healthy food she likes the taste of, litter box kept clean, medical care whenever she needs it, free run of the apartment, plenty of toys and I spend plenty of time playing with her.  I sure wouldn't exchange my lifestyle for hers, tho, or any other domesticated animal.  I can't help thinking the animals we've domesticated would have been better off left in the wild.

There are a few points here. Yes from a pure neo-darwinst perspective the quality of life of an organism is irrelevant. Success is gauged purely by the 'head count' of reproducing organisms. It is just one measure of success.

A chap who hunts once said something that made me think. When he was told that what he did was cruel he replied "What's the alternative?". There are no vets in nature. In the wild animals die from illness, accident, old age or being eaten alive.

The treatment of domesticated animals (not pets) appears to be your main concern. In this respect I agree with you that exploiting animals for entertainment in ways that are contra to the behaviour one would normally see in the wild is 'cruel'. For animals bread to be eaten I would again contend that keeping these animals in a way that prevents them exercising their repatiour of natural behaviors would be 'cruel'.

Pets are a slightly different form of domestication. I agree that breeding to the point when natural activities, such as reproduction, become impossible without human intervention constitutes 'cruelty'. The South African Ridgeback is an example of a breed that relies on the deformity of the spine to just the right degree. Many puppies are 'euthanized' at birth as their spines are too deformed.

My two doggies have 1st class private health care, a 4 bedroom 'kennel', good food and regular long off lead walks where they can behave in a pretty good analogy of their natural behaviour. And when their quality of life has degenerated too far they will depart their lives in a sympathetic fashion currently denied to humans.

So given certain caveats I don't have any serious issues with domestication provided that there is still a truly wild population of the un-domesticated ancestors.

It's actually the wild population that is more worrying, IMO. Some live in habitats are slowly being destroyed, part of ecosystems that are changing and others are endangered species.

I think there is a real problem with directed breeding, because replacing natural selection with artificial selection will create the sort of animals that can't give birth on their own (that would be the Bulldog, it's head is too big), brains that outgrow their skulls and cause serious health issues, among many others. My sister, for instance, has a Shih Tzu, who as a puppy still has one of his eyes almost popping out of the socket coupled with cataract. 

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 29, 2011, 02:45:50 AM

Quote from: Tank on October 28, 2011, 09:47:41 AM
Now that's a very interesting point! As we are just vehicles for the reproduction of our genes; which would be considered the most successful species the Timber Wolf or the domestic dog? The dog by far. The symbiotic relationship that the dog has with humans has spread its genome all over the planet. The same could be said for horses, cattle, sheep, goats, chickens etc. In the genetic lottery a genome couldn't win a better prize than being domesticated IMHO. 

Genetically successful as far as numbers go, but at what cost in quality of life?  There's a breed of dog (can't remember which one, I think one of the bulldogs) who've been so tweaked by humans they can't give birth naturally anymore, some woman in the US has deliberately bred cats with a mutation that makes it impossible for them to walk on their forepaws because she thinks that's cute, and I don't even want to get into factory farm animals. 

I work at a vet clinic and there are some breeds of dogs that have been bred with so many genetic problems, I feel bad for them for even existing sometimes. Neapolitan Mastiffs, for instance, have been bred with huge folds of skin around their face.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canadasguidetodogs.com%2Fcustomergraphics%2Fnea7.jpg&hash=25bf12679a0e48efaba03f7231b12952659aa18a)

This is done purely for aesthetics, but can cause them all kinds of problems - their skin folds can become frequently infected, their vision can be impaired. All kinds of stuff.

That being said, the average lifespan for a wild dog is probably 5 years or so, whereas for a domesticated dog it's probably 10+ years on average. And I do think they have a better quality of life with us humans - for example, I see a marked difference in health/happiness between indoor cats and outdoor cats. It's always outdoor cats that come in with nasty bite abscesses, feline leukemia and all kinds of horrible stuff.

So, on the whole, I think that humans have probably improved the lives of animals that have become our pets, but I do agree that we have "tinkered" with some of them more than we should have.