This question arose in the terrorism thread where I suggested that muslim radicals in iraq find themselves permitting themselves to do obvious great evil and using their book and god to justify it.
Quoting Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Stephen Weinberg
QuoteReligion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
People on their own will follow their nature endevoring to do what they feel is right, ethical and moral. Good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things. This is a bit solipsistic, but what makes a man good is what he does. To quote Matthew 7:16 "You shall know them by their fruits".
Now to where we get our morals from. All humans have a natural evolved morality combined from instinct and societal norms. In effect you have genes and memes which are passed on from generation to generation. In effect you can discriminate which are which. Human universals are genetic and can be found (applying to the in-group rather than necessarily to all humans) in all societies. I'd suggest that these include the "Do Not" commandments prohibiting theft, perjury and murder. The memtic morals would be more of a "how to" kind telling you how to have sex and with whom, how to dress, how to worship, how to treat your animals etc.
Now why do these morals often seem universal. In animal evolution you get different animals evolving differently in different environments; why are these supposed universal morals nearly identical? The environment our morals evolved in are the stone age hunter gatherer tribe and the traditional farming village. Having good relations with a group of about 120 other humans is the gold standard here. Behaviors and rules of conduct which tend to produce happy, cooperative and well functioning groups of humans are the bedrock of morality.
Some moral and ethical standards are better than others. You do not need to constantly guard your stuff if your group has a rule of conduct which includes "do not steal" and if it has "do not rape" as well then you don't need to shunt your women in a burka and guard them 24/7. What makes one set of morals better than others? Well the success of society. Successful societies here are the ones which thrive, procreate and pass on their morals, just in the way that successful animals (evolutionarily speaking) are the ones which are healthy, have offspring which have their genes.
The thought experiment here is to imagine two tribes of stone age hunters both of which are perfectly happy to kill outsiders but one group has a moral rule that prohibits them from killing a member of their own tribe. It is a bit trivial to consider which will thrive and which will not and within generations you can be certain that the violent tribe is gone while the cohesive one is still there, possibly having split up into two groups the second living on the violent group's territory.
If you get your morality from the bible or koran you think that eating shellfish is a mortal sin and that killing religious outsiders is the more virtuous activity. When Hitchens sub-titles his book "how religion poisons everything" he means just this. You cannot be moral if you get your morals from an instruction manual. You are not being good because you are not doing what you know to be good, you are doing what the book tells you is good.
The same works with evil. If you have a book you do not avoid doing evil because it is evil, you avoid doing evil because the book tells you so. If you think this is false I refer you to the multitude of christian apologists (muslim apologists don't use logic, they show up at your house with an axe) who have argued that without absolute divine command morality backed up by the thread of divine punishment they would rape and steal without fear of reprisals.
The book teaches you to ignore your own moral sense. This is the difference between the Norwegian Resistance (I refer to them because they are the resistance group mentioned in the question) and the Iraqi Insurgents. Gunnar Sønsteby and Max Manus had to justify to themselves why what they did was moral, al-Zarqawi and al-Masri only had to say God wills it and they didn't need to consider their actions at all.
That is where I think all peoples get their morals from and that is why I think religion (to paraphrase Hitchens) "poisons morality".
The "universal" morals are the ones which allow people to coexist with each other in a society and let each other pursue their individual desires as much as possible without getting into the way of each other.
IMHO, the "good" people are the ones who realize the need for such co-existing on their own (well, based on what they saw of the world, what their parents taught of them etc). Point being, that good people choose to honor that basic rule above on their own accord, not because they fear punishment from God.
The rest of the people are dumb fucktards who need the threat of eternal punishment to behave semi-civilized. Thus, religion was born.
Didn't read your long post but i'll assume it's anti-religious. As to the question at hand, morals are societal. Atheists have the same moral guidelines as any other person in said society. and like their religious counterparts atheists can choose whether or not to follow the guidelines. i doubt most religious people go "if i do this will god get mad at me? I know i sure didn't when i was religious. They know what right at and wrong just like any other person growing up, they were taught what was right and what was wrong.
What baffles me are people who claim that if not for God and the threat of eternal damnation, they would be murdering, raping and stealing. People like this should be isolated from the society.
The funny thing is though, the modern, western morals are almost entirely based on Christian teachings.
Quote from: Martinus on August 01, 2012, 04:26:38 AM
What baffles me are people who claim that if not for God and the threat of eternal damnation, they would be murdering, raping and stealing. People like this should be isolated from the society.
Oh bullshit. All that means is that you'd get laid more often.
There were a LOT of historical cultures where murder and rape were okay under certain circumstances and a few today where murder is okay.
Quote from: Martinus on August 01, 2012, 04:26:38 AM
What baffles me are people who claim that if not for God and the threat of eternal damnation, they would be murdering, raping and stealing. People like this should be isolated from the society.
That would suggest that a militantly athiest state would become some kind of murderous kleptocracy. Fortunately nothing like that has ever happened.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 01, 2012, 05:15:12 AM
The funny thing is though, the modern, western morals are almost entirely based on Christian teachings.
Give some examples.
Perhaps if Hitchens was less concerned about religion poisoning anything and more concerned with tobacco poisoning, him he might still be alive.
You mentioned "memes" :bleeding: as a source of morality. Perhaps you'd like to show us the proof that memes actually exist?
Quote from: Gups on August 01, 2012, 06:50:45 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on August 01, 2012, 05:15:12 AM
The funny thing is though, the modern, western morals are almost entirely based on Christian teachings.
Give some examples.
compassion for the poor and weak, the cherishing of children, charity to the poor etc.
At some level religion and political ideology are the same. Look at Communism, or Libertarianism as examples.
Quote from: HVC on August 01, 2012, 02:43:16 AM
Didn't read your long post but i'll assume it's anti-religious. As to the question at hand, morals are societal. Atheists have the same moral guidelines as any other person in said society. and like their religious counterparts atheists can choose whether or not to follow the guidelines. i doubt most religious people go "if i do this will god get mad at me? I know i sure didn't when i was religious. They know what right at and wrong just like any other person growing up, they were taught what was right and what was wrong.
Didn't read your short post but I'll assume it's stupid. You are eggplant after all. Then I'll write something which is consistent with what I wrote in a tone where I sound like I'm telling you that you are an idiot for holding the views you don't hold at all but rather you should hold my view which I was idiotic enough not to know since I didn't bother reading your short post. Then I'll misrepresent one part of your short post (despite not having read it) justifying my opposition to that misrepresented bit by generalizing a personal anecdote. Then I'll end my post with a deepity.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 01, 2012, 05:15:12 AM
The funny thing is though, the modern, western morals are almost entirely based on Christian teachings.
The funny thing is though, what you said above is BS.
Theology wise Christianity is pro-slavery, pro-misogyny, pro-homophobia, preaches murder on apostates, opposes work, opposes reason, opposes doubt and accepts the premise of vicarious redemption through human sacrifice.
Modern Christian Teaching is almost entirely based on modern western morals as defined by the moral philosophers of the enlightenment.
Do not murder, do not steal, do not lie, do not covet, do unto others, giving to charity etc. these are the universals christian theology included. These ideas exist in all other religious and philosophical traditions.
The most significant non-universal idea christianity has transmitted to the west is a jewish one it merely carried along with it. The idea that the individual is in and of itself valuable to god who created the individual in his image. This is unique in religion and is the fundamental idea that modern democracy and the idea of human rights is built upon. Though I must insist that this idea did have it's effect until the enlightenment got it's hands on it.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 06:52:54 AM
Perhaps if Hitchens was less concerned about religion poisoning anything and more concerned with tobacco poisoning, him he might still be alive.
You mentioned "memes" :bleeding: as a source of morality. Perhaps you'd like to show us the proof that memes actually exist?
Proselytizing religions are memes. Perhaps you'd like to show us some proof that you understand the word?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 06:57:28 AM
Quote from: Gups on August 01, 2012, 06:50:45 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on August 01, 2012, 05:15:12 AM
The funny thing is though, the modern, western morals are almost entirely based on Christian teachings.
Give some examples.
compassion for the poor and weak, the cherishing of children, charity to the poor etc.
Seiously? You think charity and love for children were Christian inventions?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 06:57:28 AM
Quote from: Gups on August 01, 2012, 06:50:45 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on August 01, 2012, 05:15:12 AM
The funny thing is though, the modern, western morals are almost entirely based on Christian teachings.
Give some examples.
compassion for the poor and weak, the cherishing of children, charity to the poor etc.
Holy shit, I didn't know that Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism etc.etc. were also almost entirely based on Christian teachings.
The same we we learn everything, by observing the microcosm of society that immediately surrounds us and applying the learnt response. In this case that would be being rewarded for behaving in a way considered "good" by our nearest and dearest and assuming the same applied to greater society. As we grow we realise the "reward" may not come immediately, or at all in some interactions, but on the whole what goes around comes around. "Do unto others" and all that. Oh wait, that's the Bible :P
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 01, 2012, 07:10:24 AM
At some level religion and political ideology are the same. Look at Communism, or Libertarianism as examples.
I'll agree that dogmas of all kinds render the adherent irrational and illogical. I must, however, insist that you phrase it "religion and some political ideologies". The liberalism of Mill and conservatism of Burke are ideologies; they are not, however, "the same" as religion, communism or libertarianism.
Quote from: Brazen on August 01, 2012, 07:24:47 AM
The same we we learn everything, by observing the microcosm of society that immediately surrounds us and applying the learnt response. In this case that would be being rewarded for behaving in a way considered "good" by our nearest and dearest and assuming the same applied to greater society. As we grow we realise the "reward" may not come immediately, or at all in some interactions, but on the whole what goes around comes around. "Do unto others" and all that. Oh wait, that's the Bible :P
I'm sure that Confusius (~500 BC) and Rabbi Hillel (~100 BC) got that idea from Jesus as well? iirc it's in the Upanishads as well. If anything christian morality is claiming that it invented our evolved innate morality.
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 07:22:58 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 06:57:28 AM
Quote from: Gups on August 01, 2012, 06:50:45 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on August 01, 2012, 05:15:12 AM
The funny thing is though, the modern, western morals are almost entirely based on Christian teachings.
Give some examples.
compassion for the poor and weak, the cherishing of children, charity to the poor etc.
Holy shit, I didn't know that Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism etc.etc. were also almost entirely based on Christian teachings.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything said above? Are you saying that modern western morals are based on Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism etc.etc.? Enlightenment didn't just spring up out of nothingness; western culture had been thoroughly permeated by centuries of Christian ideas.
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 07:22:58 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 06:57:28 AM
Quote from: Gups on August 01, 2012, 06:50:45 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on August 01, 2012, 05:15:12 AM
The funny thing is though, the modern, western morals are almost entirely based on Christian teachings.
Give some examples.
compassion for the poor and weak, the cherishing of children, charity to the poor etc.
Holy shit, I didn't know that Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism etc.etc. were also almost entirely based on Christian teachings.
Beat that strawman!
Quote from: Solmyr on August 01, 2012, 07:30:26 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 07:22:58 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 06:57:28 AM
Quote from: Gups on August 01, 2012, 06:50:45 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on August 01, 2012, 05:15:12 AM
The funny thing is though, the modern, western morals are almost entirely based on Christian teachings.
Give some examples.
compassion for the poor and weak, the cherishing of children, charity to the poor etc.
Holy shit, I didn't know that Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism etc.etc. were also almost entirely based on Christian teachings.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything said above? Are you saying that modern western morals are based on Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism etc.etc.? Enlightenment didn't just spring up out of nothingness; western culture had been thoroughly permeated by centuries of Christian ideas.
I'm saying that these ideas are not christian ideas, these are the universal values that we share as humans which religions appropriate and claim as their own. The thing is that all religions preach compassion, cherishing and charity to the in-group. These are not christian ideas, they are as old as human society itself. They are in all likelihood requirements for the establishment of society at all.
Yeah, but what I'm saying is that those ideas came to us via Christianity first and foremost. Having the Enlightenment doesn't change that. And I'm saying that as a secularist agnostic. :P
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 07:21:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 06:52:54 AM
Perhaps if Hitchens was less concerned about religion poisoning anything and more concerned with tobacco poisoning, him he might still be alive.
You mentioned "memes" :bleeding: as a source of morality. Perhaps you'd like to show us the proof that memes actually exist?
Proselytizing religions are memes. Perhaps you'd like to show us some proof that you understand the word?
I asked first. Can you give evidence that memes exist? I wouldn't be able to understand something that doesn't exist now would I?
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 07:22:58 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 06:57:28 AM
Quote from: Gups on August 01, 2012, 06:50:45 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on August 01, 2012, 05:15:12 AM
The funny thing is though, the modern, western morals are almost entirely based on Christian teachings.
Give some examples.
compassion for the poor and weak, the cherishing of children, charity to the poor etc.
Holy shit, I didn't know that Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism etc.etc. were also almost entirely based on Christian teachings.
Really? How strong is your understanding of the religious texts of Zoroastrianism?
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 07:39:58 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on August 01, 2012, 07:30:26 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 07:22:58 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 06:57:28 AM
Quote from: Gups on August 01, 2012, 06:50:45 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on August 01, 2012, 05:15:12 AM
The funny thing is though, the modern, western morals are almost entirely based on Christian teachings.
Give some examples.
compassion for the poor and weak, the cherishing of children, charity to the poor etc.
Holy shit, I didn't know that Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism etc.etc. were also almost entirely based on Christian teachings.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything said above? Are you saying that modern western morals are based on Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism etc.etc.? Enlightenment didn't just spring up out of nothingness; western culture had been thoroughly permeated by centuries of Christian ideas.
I'm saying that these ideas are not christian ideas, these are the universal values that we share as humans which religions appropriate and claim as their own. The thing is that all religions preach compassion, cherishing and charity to the in-group. These are not christian ideas, they are as old as human society itself. They are in all likelihood requirements for the establishment of society at all.
So if I find one religion that doesn't preach compassion then you'll concede your point?
I stole them.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 07:44:31 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 07:39:58 AM
I'm saying that these ideas are not christian ideas, these are the universal values that we share as humans which religions appropriate and claim as their own. The thing is that all religions preach compassion, cherishing and charity to the in-group. These are not christian ideas, they are as old as human society itself. They are in all likelihood requirements for the establishment of society at all.
So if I find one religion that doesn't preach compassion then you'll concede your point?
If anyone can find one religion that does, or one pre-Christian society that does, you will concede yours?
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 07:39:58 AM
I'm saying that these ideas are not christian ideas, these are the universal values that we share as humans which religions appropriate and claim as their own. The thing is that all religions preach compassion, cherishing and charity to the in-group. These are not christian ideas, they are as old as human society itself. They are in all likelihood requirements for the establishment of society at all.
Universal values? That's a rather bold statement, given that you're talking about a whole bunch of religions that are interrelated. Not a strong argument.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 01, 2012, 07:41:53 AM
Yeah, but what I'm saying is that those ideas came to us via Christianity first and foremost. Having the Enlightenment doesn't change that. And I'm saying that as a secularist agnostic. :P
No, you responded to a claim that these morals were universal with a claim that they derived from christian teaching.
The only reason they came via christianity is because that specific religion managed to attain a monopoly on morality and ethics. Our present morals and ethics match much better with the universal morals and ethics shared by all people than they do to the specific morals and ethics as described in christian morality.
Quote from: HVC on August 01, 2012, 02:43:16 AM
Didn't read your long post but i'll assume it's anti-religious.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 07:42:27 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 07:21:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 06:52:54 AM
Perhaps if Hitchens was less concerned about religion poisoning anything and more concerned with tobacco poisoning, him he might still be alive.
You mentioned "memes" :bleeding: as a source of morality. Perhaps you'd like to show us the proof that memes actually exist?
Proselytizing religions are memes. Perhaps you'd like to show us some proof that you understand the word?
I asked first. Can you give evidence that memes exist? I wouldn't be able to understand something that doesn't exist now would I?
An example of an existing meme is sufficient proof for the existence of memes.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 07:43:30 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 07:22:58 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 06:57:28 AM
Quote from: Gups on August 01, 2012, 06:50:45 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on August 01, 2012, 05:15:12 AM
The funny thing is though, the modern, western morals are almost entirely based on Christian teachings.
Give some examples.
compassion for the poor and weak, the cherishing of children, charity to the poor etc.
Holy shit, I didn't know that Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism etc.etc. were also almost entirely based on Christian teachings.
Really? How strong is your understanding of the religious texts of Zoroastrianism?
It is sufficient to know that the zoroastrians believe that good deeds are a moral duty and necessary to keep the world from dissolving into nothingness. You obviously don't know shit. (zoom zoom)
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 07:44:31 AM
So if I find one religion that doesn't preach compassion then you'll concede your point?
I'll concede the point when you find a successful religion that preaches anti-compassion to in-group members.
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2012, 07:52:51 AM
Universal values? That's a rather bold statement, given that you're talking about a whole bunch of religions that are interrelated. Not a strong argument.
Yes, Christianity "stole" those ideas from all the "untrue" religions for the simple reason that this is what people believed anyways. You can't claim that compassion and care for children are christian values because they exist in all societies including the non-christian ones. Being christian is not a relevant factor in finding out if you are compassionate and care for children.
All the successful religions share a set of basic rules. They share these rules not because some book or god told them these rules but because they value them already. It's not like the Israelites out in the desert didn't know that lying, stealing and murder were immoral before Moses went up the mountain and came back with the stone tablets. The Egyptians before them knew this very well and had their own equivalent commandments and theology. Do you think the egyptians didn't know that stealing, lying and murder were wrong?
The sumerians and egyptians knew that theft, perjury and murder were immoral well before YAHWE supposedly created the world.
Far from weakening my point, the fact that all these interrelated (and the non-related ones as well) agree on basic morality it confirms it. If you get your morality from god or scripture the greater the deviation your religion has from the supposed true god the greater we expect your deviation in morality to be. We do not find this. Religion is very specifically not a source of morality specifically since the "what" questions of morality are all the same among all religions for their in-groups. The variation is in the "how" questions.
A thread that starts with the moronic idea that morals are at least partially "genetic" and builds from there. Love it!
Also love the debate about whether memes exist. Next debate: does "gravity" exist?
*pops popcorn*
I always feel strange in these threads. On one hand I feel the need to defend my culture and my religion from Viking's ferocious attacks...on the other I do not really claim or believe the things he is trying to disprove. While the Ancient Romans and Greeks did some pretty messed up shit I think they are as much the ancestors of our moral system as Christianity...since in so many ways Christianity carries along alot of their values. So I would guess the place Atheists get their morals from is the same place Christians got alot of theirs: from Ancient Philosophy.
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 08:26:49 AM
Yes, Christianity "stole" those ideas from all the "untrue" religions for the simple reason that this is what people believed anyways.
:bleeding: x 1000
Yes and the West "stole" Algebra from the Arabs :P
"To those who say the Apaches do not know right from wrong and that is why they are so vicious - I say, try wronging one and see what happens".
- Life Among the Apaches, John C. Cremony
My view is that these values are not exactly universal but are a necessary development to allow societies to develop following the agricultural revolution.
To sum it up -
Viking: Religion Bad
Others: No, religion gave some western morals
Martinus: Religion bad? Me like!
Others: Confusing statements not supported
Anti Religion side: Christianity all Old Testament! Converging morality all strawmen!
(somewhere in here Raz-bombing commences, personal attacks on some)
Others: Ignore points, debate Languish style
Anti Relion side: Ignore points, debate Languish style
Quote from: grumbler on August 01, 2012, 08:29:19 AM
A thread that starts with the moronic idea that morals are at least partially "genetic" and builds from there. Love it!
Is conscience and remorse a learned behavior?
Anyway, to answer the OP, I got mine from Tesco. I still got my receipt, so I may return them at some point, especially as they are largely unused.
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 07:28:38 AM
Quote from: Brazen on August 01, 2012, 07:24:47 AM
The same we we learn everything, by observing the microcosm of society that immediately surrounds us and applying the learnt response. In this case that would be being rewarded for behaving in a way considered "good" by our nearest and dearest and assuming the same applied to greater society. As we grow we realise the "reward" may not come immediately, or at all in some interactions, but on the whole what goes around comes around. "Do unto others" and all that. Oh wait, that's the Bible :P
I'm sure that Confusius (~500 BC) and Rabbi Hillel (~100 BC) got that idea from Jesus as well? iirc it's in the Upanishads as well. If anything christian morality is claiming that it invented our evolved innate morality.
So did Seneca and many stoics.
Got my morality from a box of Cracker Jacks and a couple fortune cookies. It's worked out pretty well so far. How about you Viking?
Oh.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 01, 2012, 07:41:53 AM
Yeah, but what I'm saying is that those ideas came to us via Christianity first and foremost. Having the Enlightenment doesn't change that. And I'm saying that as a secularist agnostic. :P
That's only because Christianity has been the dominant ideology/religion in our culture for the last 1500 years. But if a different religion/ideology replaced it, the outcome would have been similar (or, in many cases, probably better, as in addition to its fair share of humanistic values, Christianity brought a lot of immoral bullshit with it, too) - so this cannot be used as a proof of Christianity's exceptionalism, as some people here are using it.
The argument is like saying we should be grateful for Coca Cola, as without it we would have died of dehydration.
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2012, 08:48:19 AM
Is conscience and remorse a learned behavior?
Good question. Bad grammar.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 07:42:27 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 07:21:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 06:52:54 AM
Perhaps if Hitchens was less concerned about religion poisoning anything and more concerned with tobacco poisoning, him he might still be alive.
You mentioned "memes" :bleeding: as a source of morality. Perhaps you'd like to show us the proof that memes actually exist?
Proselytizing religions are memes. Perhaps you'd like to show us some proof that you understand the word?
I asked first. Can you give evidence that memes exist? I wouldn't be able to understand something that doesn't exist now would I?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.memegenerator.net%2Finstances%2F250x250%2F24201771.jpg&hash=20a48a0b977c9daef97334493d870e1abfad8b2f)
Q.E.D.
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 08:01:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 07:42:27 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 07:21:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 06:52:54 AM
Perhaps if Hitchens was less concerned about religion poisoning anything and more concerned with tobacco poisoning, him he might still be alive.
You mentioned "memes" :bleeding: as a source of morality. Perhaps you'd like to show us the proof that memes actually exist?
Proselytizing religions are memes. Perhaps you'd like to show us some proof that you understand the word?
I asked first. Can you give evidence that memes exist? I wouldn't be able to understand something that doesn't exist now would I?
An example of an existing meme is sufficient proof for the existence of memes.
Uh no. That's tautological.
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 08:12:39 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 07:44:31 AM
So if I find one religion that doesn't preach compassion then you'll concede your point?
I'll concede the point when you find a successful religion that preaches anti-compassion to in-group members.
Define "in-group" and "successful".
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 08:12:39 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 07:44:31 AM
So if I find one religion that doesn't preach compassion then you'll concede your point?
I'll concede the point when you find a successful religion that preaches anti-compassion to in-group members.
As much as I do not wish to engage in this particular diatribe from Viking, I do wish to point out that one of the central teachings of Christianity was that it taught compassion to out-of-group members. See the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
Quote from: Valmy on August 01, 2012, 08:32:13 AM
I always feel strange in these threads. On one hand I feel the need to defend my culture and my religion from Viking's ferocious attacks...on the other I do not really claim or believe the things he is trying to disprove.
This confuses me as well. You agree with me but keep trying to prove us wrong. Then again you know how I feel when the stalin/hitler was an atheist trope springs up. My attacks are not ferocious, they are analytical and to the point. This is one of the reasons why all atheists sound strident when they are analytical and to the point. When I explain where I get my morals from I am also asserting that you don't get your morals from the bible. Apparently this makes religious people feel apprehensive.
Quote from: Valmy on August 01, 2012, 08:32:13 AM
While the Ancient Romans and Greeks did some pretty messed up shit I think they are as much the ancestors of our moral system as Christianity...since in so many ways Christianity carries along alot of their values. So I would guess the place Atheists get their morals from is the same place Christians got alot of theirs: from Ancient Philosophy.
Again, my main point here is that Ancient Philosophy is an expression of our universal morality. Australian aboriginies and Amerindians had very similar ideas about in-group ethics and morality as we do even today. The "what" questions have the same answers while the "how" questions have different ones. Australian aboriginies diverged from the rest of the planet 40,000 years ago at least, the Amerindians about 20,000 years ago. These people were isolated for 37,500 and 17,500 years respectively before the Axial age and invention of Ancient Philosophy, yet the still share our basic ideas on how to behave. They knew that lying, stealing and murder was wrong; they knew that covetousness was detrimental to group solidarity; they knew that empathy for the feelings and emotions of others was a requirement for cooperating and getting along with them.
Good people will do good things regardless of what their religion is.
Quote from: grumbler on August 01, 2012, 08:29:19 AM
A thread that starts with the moronic idea that morals are at least partially "genetic" and builds from there. Love it!
Also love the debate about whether memes exist. Next debate: does "gravity" exist?
*pops popcorn*
Actually our next debtate is whether you contribute anything to this board.
SIGNS POINT TO NO
Quote from: Valmy on August 01, 2012, 08:36:40 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 08:26:49 AM
Yes, Christianity "stole" those ideas from all the "untrue" religions for the simple reason that this is what people believed anyways.
:bleeding: x 1000
Yes and the West "stole" Algebra from the Arabs :P
no, man does not have a "sensus mathematicus" as they do a sense of moral right and wrong. Not all societies invent algebra, all societies "invent" morality.
Quote from: Martinus on August 01, 2012, 08:51:11 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 07:28:38 AM
Quote from: Brazen on August 01, 2012, 07:24:47 AM
The same we we learn everything, by observing the microcosm of society that immediately surrounds us and applying the learnt response. In this case that would be being rewarded for behaving in a way considered "good" by our nearest and dearest and assuming the same applied to greater society. As we grow we realise the "reward" may not come immediately, or at all in some interactions, but on the whole what goes around comes around. "Do unto others" and all that. Oh wait, that's the Bible :P
I'm sure that Confusius (~500 BC) and Rabbi Hillel (~100 BC) got that idea from Jesus as well? iirc it's in the Upanishads as well. If anything christian morality is claiming that it invented our evolved innate morality.
So did Seneca and many stoics.
I felt that I should trim the list of people who came up with the golden rule on their own as we are limited by space and Seneca was a contemporary of Jesus and I want to focus on those who preceeded Jesus by at least multiple generations.
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 09:32:59 AMThis is one of the reasons why all atheists sound strident when they are analytical and to the point.
Analytical, to the point pub bores.
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 09:32:59 AM
My attacks are not ferocious, they are analytical and to the point.
:lmfao:
It's sort of cute that Viking thinks his insults and bigotry is someone how analytical.
Speaking of religion in general I think it can fill people with a connection to others and perhaps a desire to do good things. Obviously that is not a universal response to spiritual experiences but it is a pretty common one. But even in that case one would need a definition of what the good is. And therefore most religions try to define that, but they obviously are getting that from something because really that is an intellectual exercise. To determine what actions would benefit people or what at least would not harm them.
Is that not one of the most basic questions of philosophy? What is the good? I do not know if those are really natural things since the answers are not always the most intuitive.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 09:12:20 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 08:01:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 07:42:27 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 07:21:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 06:52:54 AM
Perhaps if Hitchens was less concerned about religion poisoning anything and more concerned with tobacco poisoning, him he might still be alive.
You mentioned "memes" :bleeding: as a source of morality. Perhaps you'd like to show us the proof that memes actually exist?
Proselytizing religions are memes. Perhaps you'd like to show us some proof that you understand the word?
I asked first. Can you give evidence that memes exist? I wouldn't be able to understand something that doesn't exist now would I?
An example of an existing meme is sufficient proof for the existence of memes.
Uh no. That's tautological.
It seems that in addition to Meme you don't know what the word Tautology means.
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 09:32:59 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 01, 2012, 08:32:13 AM
I always feel strange in these threads. On one hand I feel the need to defend my culture and my religion from Viking's ferocious attacks...on the other I do not really claim or believe the things he is trying to disprove.
This confuses me as well. You agree with me but keep trying to prove us wrong. Then again you know how I feel when the stalin/hitler was an atheist trope springs up. My attacks are not ferocious, they are analytical and to the point. This is one of the reasons why all atheists sound strident when they are analytical and to the point. When I explain where I get my morals from I am also asserting that you don't get your morals from the bible. Apparently this makes religious people feel apprehensive.
Quote from: Valmy on August 01, 2012, 08:32:13 AM
While the Ancient Romans and Greeks did some pretty messed up shit I think they are as much the ancestors of our moral system as Christianity...since in so many ways Christianity carries along alot of their values. So I would guess the place Atheists get their morals from is the same place Christians got alot of theirs: from Ancient Philosophy.
Again, my main point here is that Ancient Philosophy is an expression of our universal morality. Australian aboriginies and Amerindians had very similar ideas about in-group ethics and morality as we do even today. The "what" questions have the same answers while the "how" questions have different ones. Australian aboriginies diverged from the rest of the planet 40,000 years ago at least, the Amerindians about 20,000 years ago. These people were isolated for 37,500 and 17,500 years respectively before the Axial age and invention of Ancient Philosophy, yet the still share our basic ideas on how to behave. They knew that lying, stealing and murder was wrong; they knew that covetousness was detrimental to group solidarity; they knew that empathy for the feelings and emotions of others was a requirement for cooperating and getting along with them.
Good people will do good things regardless of what their religion is.
The history of religion and religious morality is in lockstep with social evolution, just as one would expect. The major religions are well-placed to add social cohesion to early modern states.
All societies tend to have religious and moral beliefs that are appropriate to them. Members of tribal societies are very moral - to members of their tribe. But can be horrible to people who are not. Similarly, national religions are well-placed to organize early states (the Judaism as revealed in the OT is a good example) but not so good at translating beyond national differences. The great international religions (Buddhism, Christianity, Islam) are good at that - Islam is a perfect example of a religion able to overcome national and tribal distinctions - but they in turn tend to fall prey to splitting up into sectoral units that fight as viciously as nations do.
In anthropology, certain aspects of religion can be seen as an unconcious (or even partly concious) attempt to pull people together into a more expansive grouping able to resist some perceived disaster - through either assimilation of the larger society, as in early Christianity, or through uniting squabbling tribes for conquest, as in Islam. Part of that process is going to be a more expansive, less parochial morality. The end-point is perhaps a universal morality not based on either clan or creed - so far, that has been the preserve of philosophers and mystics. We simply are not there yet - similarly, we do not yet have a real world-government. The evolution of morality and of society tend to go hand-in-hand.
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2012, 09:27:32 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 08:12:39 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 07:44:31 AM
So if I find one religion that doesn't preach compassion then you'll concede your point?
I'll concede the point when you find a successful religion that preaches anti-compassion to in-group members.
As much as I do not wish to engage in this particular diatribe from Viking, I do wish to point out that one of the central teachings of Christianity was that it taught compassion to out-of-group members. See the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
This is why I have consistently stressed the nature of in-group morality here. I even referred to it earlier in this thread responding to Solmyr
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 07:19:20 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on August 01, 2012, 05:15:12 AM
The funny thing is though, the modern, western morals are almost entirely based on Christian teachings.
The funny thing is though, what you said above is BS.
Theology wise Christianity is pro-slavery, pro-misogyny, pro-homophobia, preaches murder on apostates, opposes work, opposes reason, opposes doubt and accepts the premise of vicarious redemption through human sacrifice.
Modern Christian Teaching is almost entirely based on modern western morals as defined by the moral philosophers of the enlightenment.
Do not murder, do not steal, do not lie, do not covet, do unto others, giving to charity etc. these are the universals christian theology included. These ideas exist in all other religious and philosophical traditions.
The most significant non-universal idea christianity has transmitted to the west is a jewish one it merely carried along with it. The idea that the individual is in and of itself valuable to god who created the individual in his image. This is unique in religion and is the fundamental idea that modern democracy and the idea of human rights is built upon. Though I must insist that this idea did have it's effect until the enlightenment got it's hands on it.
You can argue if this idea is about extending morality to out-group members or defining all of humanity as in-group members when it comes to morality. The in-group is the "us" the group you identify with and consider yourself a part of. The definition and clarity of who is in the in-group and who is in the out-group and how morality applies is difficult, complex and situational. As the Bedouin proverb goes "me against my brother, with my brother against my neighbor, with my neighbor against my tribe, with my tribe against my country" (or however it is expressed in each case...). Or as the newspaper editor might value a dog bites man story that happened across the street just as much as one about an earthquake killing 100,000 in china (again, you have heard the quote I am misquoting).
Here the issues of passive and active moral duty in each situation depends on the distance or level of in-group-ness. This is a fascinating topic, yes it needs discussing, it is a unique contribution that christianity managed to produce from a throwaway line in the hebrew bible and apparently
it is never used as an example of morality by those claiming the bible as the source of their morals.
I think that the idea that morals and ethics are universal (not to be confused with objective) for all humanity is the principle contribution of Christianity to the west and we would not have the enlightenment or modernity without that idea.
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 09:46:26 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 09:12:20 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 08:01:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 07:42:27 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 07:21:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 06:52:54 AM
Perhaps if Hitchens was less concerned about religion poisoning anything and more concerned with tobacco poisoning, him he might still be alive.
You mentioned "memes" :bleeding: as a source of morality. Perhaps you'd like to show us the proof that memes actually exist?
Proselytizing religions are memes. Perhaps you'd like to show us some proof that you understand the word?
I asked first. Can you give evidence that memes exist? I wouldn't be able to understand something that doesn't exist now would I?
An example of an existing meme is sufficient proof for the existence of memes.
Uh no. That's tautological.
It seems that in addition to Meme you don't know what the word Tautology means.
I know what tautological means as well as "conciseness" though it's clear you don't know at least one of these. Now where is the scientific evidential supporting memes? Where is the information that "mutates" in memes? What is the basic form, the "DNA" of a meme? Can you even disprove the existence of memes?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 01, 2012, 02:27:49 AM
QuoteWhere do atheists get their morals from?
God. :D
:yes:
Quote from: Valmy on August 01, 2012, 09:40:16 AM
Speaking of religion in general I think it can fill people with a connection to others and perhaps a desire to do good things. Obviously that is not a universal response to spiritual experiences but it is a pretty common one. But even in that case one would need a definition of what the good is. And therefore most religions try to define that, but they obviously are getting that from something because really that is an intellectual exercise. To determine what actions would benefit people or what at least would not harm them.
Is that not one of the most basic questions of philosophy? What is the good? I do not know if those are really natural things since the answers are not always the most intuitive.
This is going to shock you coming from an atheist. Religion is part of our natural morals. This does not mean that God exists, it just means that religion helps make successful societies. Religion is successful and moral because good solutions and behaviors are not natural. Reason, logic, math (including algebra) and language are not natural. Short cut rules of thumb work where long winded tedious explanations defining and measuring all the effects of killing your brother raping his wife and stealing stuff won't.
Parents will know that at some point "because I say so" ends the discussion with the toddler.
Quote from: Martinus on August 01, 2012, 08:55:48 AM
That's only because Christianity has been the dominant ideology/religion in our culture for the last 1500 years. But if a different religion/ideology replaced it, the outcome would have been similar (or, in many cases, probably better, as in addition to its fair share of humanistic values, Christianity brought a lot of immoral bullshit with it, too) - so this cannot be used as a proof of Christianity's exceptionalism, as some people here are using it.
So you agree with me. :P
I wasn't claiming Christianity's exceptionalism at any point. Just saying that from the point of view of modern western morality, Christianity was a pretty big defining force, and trying to marginalize its role and equate it with other religions
in this context is a fallacy.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 01, 2012, 10:15:34 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 01, 2012, 08:55:48 AM
That's only because Christianity has been the dominant ideology/religion in our culture for the last 1500 years. But if a different religion/ideology replaced it, the outcome would have been similar (or, in many cases, probably better, as in addition to its fair share of humanistic values, Christianity brought a lot of immoral bullshit with it, too) - so this cannot be used as a proof of Christianity's exceptionalism, as some people here are using it.
So you agree with me. :P
I wasn't claiming Christianity's exceptionalism at any point. Just saying that from the point of view of modern western morality, Christianity was a pretty big defining force, and trying to marginalize its role and equate it with other religions in this context is a fallacy.
I'd like to point out that without being "made in the image of god" and the choice of the early church fathers to interpret this to mean that all humans have value in and of themselves to god we would not have gotten anywhere near where we are today. Without the idea and value of universality we don't get the west.
There's nothing more dull than an insecure atheist.
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 10:06:13 AM
Here the issues of passive and active moral duty in each situation depends on the distance or level of in-group-ness. This is a fascinating topic, yes it needs discussing, it is a unique contribution that christianity managed to produce from a throwaway line in the hebrew bible and apparently it is never used as an example of morality by those claiming the bible as the source of their morals.
As a proposition that Christianity teaches to love all men, Christian and otherwise, I cited the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
It exists in the New Testament, and is amongst the most famous and most cited of Jesus' teachings.
I have no idea what you're talking about when you talk about 'a throwaway line in the hebrew bible that is never used'.
Is it possible you are unfamiliar with the story of the Good Samaritan? If so...
Quote from: The Gospel of Luke, World English Bible
25 Behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read it?"
27 He answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind;✡Deuteronomy 6:5 and your neighbor as yourself."✡Leviticus 19:18
28 He said to him, "You have answered correctly. Do this, and you will live."
29 But he, desiring to justify himself, asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbor?"
30 Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, 34 came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.' 36 Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?"
37 He said, "He who showed mercy on him."
Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."
http://www.ebible.org/web/LUK10.htm#V25
I think the "good Samaritan" parable is one of the most lucid in the bible. And is likely the most relatable story you can quote today. Most everyone has experienced being the first two folks who were not compassionate enough, or fearful of the trauma they saw; or have helped somebody in that situation, and been a good samaritan. I have done both, walking past someone I barely recognized as "in trouble" due to my own self absorption, and I have also helped people out who were in need of some compassion, and help. In this day and age, lots of folks are "lying beaten, and bloody on the side of the road. If you can muster the strength to help. you are a good person, Christian, Atheist or whatever your -ism.
Personally I'm neither a Christian (or any other religion) nor an Atheist. But I Believe in human beings, and that most of the time, most of us are pretty decent to each other, regardless of our creeds. For me, the afterlife and all these rewards/punishments for how you act in society, are simple codes, that mostly have the right idea. treat your neighbours nicely, don't hurt people, don't steal. All very reasonable things to reinforce through whatever codes your society wants to write down.
where this all breaks apart for me, is all the spiteful, angry interpretations of these codes, that obviously are meant to cause strife (and the need to control said strife) and form pyramid like power structures.
my two cents, anyway.
Define atheist.
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 02:22:56 AM
This question arose in the terrorism thread where I suggested that muslim radicals in iraq find themselves permitting themselves to do obvious great evil and using their book and god to justify it.
Uhm, not really.
My question to you in that thread wasn't about where atheists get their morals from. I was questioning your apparant assumption that WWII-era Norwegians were, in the main, atheists.
In cohesive cultures morality can come from fear of ostracism independent of religion.
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2012, 11:22:09 AM
I have no idea what you're talking about when you talk about 'a throwaway line in the hebrew bible that is never used'.
Genesis 1:27
Quote27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Theologians and Philosophers ran with this one taking the meaning to be that each individual person is individually created with reason, purpose and value to god; a role in his ultimate plan if you want to say it that way. Other religions don't have that. The original line was possibly ripped off from one of the river culture myths about marduk or amon-ra (or some other god) creating man from clay.
Quote from: dps on August 01, 2012, 01:10:32 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 02:22:56 AM
This question arose in the terrorism thread where I suggested that muslim radicals in iraq find themselves permitting themselves to do obvious great evil and using their book and god to justify it.
Uhm, not really.
My question to you in that thread wasn't about where atheists get their morals from. I was questioning your apparant assumption that WWII-era Norwegians were, in the main, atheists.
OK
The WWII era Norwegian got their morals from the same place atheists and everybody else does. Where you find extreme violence it will co-incide with exception or licence for expediency granted from above (from the great leader or god).
My argument is that the norwegians were running on normal morals while the iraqis operating with a licence to kill civilians from god.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 02:05:17 PM
In cohesive cultures morality can come from fear of ostracism independent of religion.
That's conformity, not morality.
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 02:18:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2012, 11:22:09 AM
I have no idea what you're talking about when you talk about 'a throwaway line in the hebrew bible that is never used'.
Genesis 1:27
Quote27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Theologians and Philosophers ran with this one taking the meaning to be that each individual person is individually created with reason, purpose and value to god; a role in his ultimate plan if you want to say it that way. Other religions don't have that. The original line was possibly ripped off from one of the river culture myths about marduk or amon-ra (or some other god) creating man from clay.
Well "Man was amde in the image of God" is hardly unused - that phrase has been repeated numerous times.
But I was just challenging this notion that religions only teach you how to treat "in group people", by pointing out that Christianity has a prominent message to treat all peoples, Jews and Gentiles alike, as your neighbor.
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2012, 02:28:11 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 02:18:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2012, 11:22:09 AM
I have no idea what you're talking about when you talk about 'a throwaway line in the hebrew bible that is never used'.
Genesis 1:27
Quote27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Theologians and Philosophers ran with this one taking the meaning to be that each individual person is individually created with reason, purpose and value to god; a role in his ultimate plan if you want to say it that way. Other religions don't have that. The original line was possibly ripped off from one of the river culture myths about marduk or amon-ra (or some other god) creating man from clay.
Well "Man was amde in the image of God" is hardly unused - that phrase has been repeated numerous times.
But I was just challenging this notion that religions only teach you how to treat "in group people", by pointing out that Christianity has a prominent message to treat all peoples, Jews and Gentiles alike, as your neighbor.
In theory at least, Christianity is pretty much universalist--everybody is in the "in group"; some just haven't accepted the message yet. Islam is actually the same, except Islam lays out explicit, detailed rules about how to treat those who haven't yet accepted (and there are different classes of those who haven't accepted the message). In contrast, Judaism is exceptionalist--there's a clear separation between Jews and non-Jews (again, in theory, and of course even in theory it isn't impossible to become a Jew).
Well, shucks, I got to rambling a bit there and have no idea what point I was trying to make.
Quote from: dps on August 01, 2012, 02:26:04 PM
That's conformity, not morality.
And a religious person is performing a cost/benefit on the afterlife. That's not morality either.
Quote from: dps on August 01, 2012, 02:38:19 PM
In contrast, Judaism is exceptionalist--there's a clear separation between Jews and non-Jews (again, in theory, and of course even in theory it isn't impossible to become a Jew).
Yeah but even that is a little nuanced. Like in Jonah where God says how much he loves the Assyrians, when the Assyrians were the nationality everybody hated. They were picked in the story for exactly that reason, God loves everybody even total assholes like the people of Nineveh.
Which does contradict some of the earlier stuff in the OT but Jewish scriptures get more universalist and God gets more loving as the writings get more recent. It shows an evolution of Jewish religious thought.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 02:42:36 PM
Quote from: dps on August 01, 2012, 02:26:04 PM
That's conformity, not morality.
And a religious person is performing a cost/benefit on the afterlife. That's not morality either.
Are they? Religious Jews generally aren't--there's very little thought of an afterlife in Judaism.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 02:42:36 PM
And a religious person is performing a cost/benefit on the afterlife. That's not morality either.
Or the cost/benefit of God smiting them or rewarding them in this life.
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2012, 02:28:11 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 02:18:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2012, 11:22:09 AM
I have no idea what you're talking about when you talk about 'a throwaway line in the hebrew bible that is never used'.
Genesis 1:27
Quote27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Theologians and Philosophers ran with this one taking the meaning to be that each individual person is individually created with reason, purpose and value to god; a role in his ultimate plan if you want to say it that way. Other religions don't have that. The original line was possibly ripped off from one of the river culture myths about marduk or amon-ra (or some other god) creating man from clay.
Well "Man was amde in the image of God" is hardly unused - that phrase has been repeated numerous times.
But I was just challenging this notion that religions only teach you how to treat "in group people", by pointing out that Christianity has a prominent message to treat all peoples, Jews and Gentiles alike, as your neighbor.
No, I'm saying that morality towards in-group people is the same (or at least very similar) for all religions. This is the innate morality that enlightenment philosophers talk about. I also added the additional memtic or cultural morality which are rules taught by parents. Treating all men like brothers is new in Christianity. All societies have moral codes about the successful helping the destitute, not all religions demand that you give all your property to the poor and give no care for the morrow (Matthew 6:34). One is a human universal the other is a learned morality. Unsurprisingly Christians cling fast the human universals found in all cultures while abandoning their indoctrinated ones (including the ones about lobsters, cheeseburgers, killing gays, killing apostates and killing people who work on Sundays) all the while claiming their morality comes from the bible.
I assert that Christians do not get their morals from the bible but from their own moral sentiments (again the enlightenment moral philosophers) and the simple argument is that they for the most part ignore the rules specific to the bible and follow the rules universal to nearly all religions.
You have to work very very hard to keep people agreeing that all people have equal rights and exist for their own sake not somebody else's.
You know Viking, it would help your arguments if you took the time to learn what Christians actually believer rather then confuse it with Jewish dietary law.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 05:09:18 PM
You know Viking, it would help your arguments if you took the time to learn what Christians actually believer rather then confuse it with Jewish dietary law.
It's his stock-in-trade though.
He can't or won't argue with what people actually believe. Instead he pretends every Christian is a biblical fundamentalist.
Quote from: dps on August 01, 2012, 02:38:19 PM
In theory at least, Christianity is pretty much universalist--everybody is in the "in group"; some just haven't accepted the message yet. Islam is actually the same, except Islam lays out explicit, detailed rules about how to treat those who haven't yet accepted (and there are different classes of those who haven't accepted the message). In contrast, Judaism is exceptionalist--there's a clear separation between Jews and non-Jews (again, in theory, and of course even in theory it isn't impossible to become a Jew).
Well, shucks, I got to rambling a bit there and have no idea what point I was trying to make.
In terms of morality, Judaism is far more universalist - in Judaism, non-Jews are accepted as being just as righteous as religious Jews so long as they follow the "Noahide laws" (as in, no murdering, no stealing, etc.). The religious theory this is based on is that Noah was famously a righteous man, and of course he was not a Jew; moreover, he's the alleged universal ancestor.
In many forms of Christianity, you can only be saved if you are Christian. In Islam, all "people of te book" (Jews, Christians) are sorta OK, if lesser. Only in Judaism can a non-Jew be morally fully equal to a Jew.
Of course, this raises the question as to why anyone would particularly want to be a Jew ... :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on August 01, 2012, 05:27:11 PM
Quote from: dps on August 01, 2012, 02:38:19 PM
In theory at least, Christianity is pretty much universalist--everybody is in the "in group"; some just haven't accepted the message yet. Islam is actually the same, except Islam lays out explicit, detailed rules about how to treat those who haven't yet accepted (and there are different classes of those who haven't accepted the message). In contrast, Judaism is exceptionalist--there's a clear separation between Jews and non-Jews (again, in theory, and of course even in theory it isn't impossible to become a Jew).
Well, shucks, I got to rambling a bit there and have no idea what point I was trying to make.
In terms of morality, Judaism is far more universalist - in Judaism, non-Jews are accepted as being just as righteous as religious Jews so long as they follow the "Noahide laws" (as in, no murdering, no stealing, etc.). The religious theory this is based on is that Noah was famously a righteous man, and of course he was not a Jew; moreover, he's the alleged universal ancestor.
In many forms of Christianity, you can only be saved if you are Christian. In Islam, all "people of te book" (Jews, Christians) are sorta OK, if lesser. Only in Judaism can a non-Jew be morally fully equal to a Jew.
Of course, this raises the question as to why anyone would particularly want to be a Jew ... :hmm:
Yeah, Jews really didn't think that part through. Say what you will about Islam, but they know how to corner the market once they enter it.
I came up with a new theory of morality during dinner: the root cause is the joy one feels when pointing out another's shortcomings.
Quote from: Malthus on August 01, 2012, 05:27:11 PM
Of course, this raises the question as to why anyone would particularly want to be a Jew ... :hmm:
for the jokes. :)
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2012, 05:15:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 05:09:18 PM
You know Viking, it would help your arguments if you took the time to learn what Christians actually believer rather then confuse it with Jewish dietary law.
It's his stock-in-trade though.
He can't or won't argue with what people actually believe. Instead he pretends every Christian is a biblical fundamentalist.
Or in this case, Siegebreaker. I actually like Viking. He's a smart guy, he's pretty good at science and stuff. I respect that. It's just he throws everything to the wind on the Athiest issue. Why can't he be like DG, also an Athiest but not really a jerk about it and doesn't go on about pseudoscience which Viking really should know better about.
Quote from: Caliga on August 01, 2012, 06:16:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 01, 2012, 05:27:11 PM
Of course, this raises the question as to why anyone would particularly want to be a Jew ... :hmm:
for the jokes. :)
And the Pussy. I knew a Jewish chick back in high school. What a little minx. Shame she was dating a friend of mine. I think she went off to join the chair force.
I have had sex with Jews. :cool:
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2012, 11:22:09 AM
As a proposition that Christianity teaches to love all men, Christian and otherwise, I cited the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
It exists in the New Testament, and is amongst the most famous and most cited of Jesus' teachings.
I have no idea what you're talking about when you talk about 'a throwaway line in the hebrew bible that is never used'.
Is it possible you are unfamiliar with the story of the Good Samaritan? If so...
Quote from: The Gospel of Luke, World English Bible
25 Behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read it?"
27 He answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind;✡Deuteronomy 6:5 and your neighbor as yourself."✡Leviticus 19:18
28 He said to him, "You have answered correctly. Do this, and you will live."
29 But he, desiring to justify himself, asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbor?"
30 Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, 34 came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.' 36 Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?"
37 He said, "He who showed mercy on him."
Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."
http://www.ebible.org/web/LUK10.htm#V25
But it's telling that he's described as the "Good Samaritan", to differentiate him from the rest of Samaritans, who were regarded as a bad, untrustworthy people.
Iirc this was because they had a similar religion, but worshipped at a different rival temple and so were rivals to those based in Jerusalem ? :unsure:
Quote from: mongers on August 01, 2012, 07:05:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2012, 11:22:09 AM
As a proposition that Christianity teaches to love all men, Christian and otherwise, I cited the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
It exists in the New Testament, and is amongst the most famous and most cited of Jesus' teachings.
I have no idea what you're talking about when you talk about 'a throwaway line in the hebrew bible that is never used'.
Is it possible you are unfamiliar with the story of the Good Samaritan? If so...
Quote from: The Gospel of Luke, World English Bible
25 Behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind;✡Deuteronomy 6:5 and your neighbor as yourself.”✡Leviticus 19:18
28 He said to him, “You have answered correctly. Do this, and you will live.”
29 But he, desiring to justify himself, asked Jesus, “Who is my neighbor?”
30 Jesus answered, “A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, 34 came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, ‘Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.’ 36 Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?”
37 He said, “He who showed mercy on him.”
Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”
http://www.ebible.org/web/LUK10.htm#V25
But it's telling that he's described as the "Good Samaritan", to differentiate him from the rest of Samaritans, who were regarded as a bad, untrustworthy people.
Iirc this was because they had a similar religion, but worshipped at a different rival temple and so were rivals to those based in Jerusalem ? :unsure:
That's completely missing the point. It wasn't that he was different from other Samaritans because he was a good guy; it was that Samaritans weren't any different, morally, from Jews.
You are correct in that Samaritans were descendents of Isrealites who had left (perhaps involuntarily) Palestine, and who were differentiated from mainstream Jews in that they felt they could establish places of worship in the citites in which they lived instead of having to travel to the Temple in Jerusalem.
Telling how mongers? :)
Quote from: Caliga on August 01, 2012, 06:16:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 01, 2012, 05:27:11 PM
Of course, this raises the question as to why anyone would particularly want to be a Jew ... :hmm:
for the jokes. :)
Or so they can butcher animals in a cruel manner. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on August 01, 2012, 05:27:11 PM
Of course, this raises the question as to why anyone would particularly want to be a Jew ... :hmm:
Because the yoke of heaven is the best kind of yoke?
Quote from: dps on August 01, 2012, 07:15:53 PM
Quote from: Caliga on August 01, 2012, 06:16:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 01, 2012, 05:27:11 PM
Of course, this raises the question as to why anyone would particularly want to be a Jew ... :hmm:
for the jokes. :)
Or so they can butcher animals in a cruel manner. ;)
So they can mutilate their infant sons in the proper American way despite living in Europe?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 05:53:43 PM
I came up with a new theory of morality during dinner: the root cause is the joy one feels when pointing out another's shortcomings.
from God is not great
QuoteNothing proves the man-made character of religion as obviously as the sick mind that designed hell, unless it is the sorely limited mind that has failed to describe heaven — except as a place of either worldly comfort, eternal tedium, or (as Tertullian thought) continual relish in the torture of others. (p. 219)
Quote from: mongers on August 01, 2012, 07:05:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2012, 11:22:09 AM
As a proposition that Christianity teaches to love all men, Christian and otherwise, I cited the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
It exists in the New Testament, and is amongst the most famous and most cited of Jesus' teachings.
I have no idea what you're talking about when you talk about 'a throwaway line in the hebrew bible that is never used'.
Is it possible you are unfamiliar with the story of the Good Samaritan? If so...
Quote from: The Gospel of Luke, World English Bible
25 Behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read it?"
27 He answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind;✡Deuteronomy 6:5 and your neighbor as yourself."✡Leviticus 19:18
28 He said to him, "You have answered correctly. Do this, and you will live."
29 But he, desiring to justify himself, asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbor?"
30 Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, 34 came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.' 36 Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?"
37 He said, "He who showed mercy on him."
Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."
http://www.ebible.org/web/LUK10.htm#V25
But it's telling that he's described as the "Good Samaritan", to differentiate him from the rest of Samaritans, who were regarded as a bad, untrustworthy people.
Iirc this was because they had a similar religion, but worshipped at a different rival temple and so were rivals to those based in Jerusalem ? :unsure:
The Samaritan is not described as good in the actual gospel.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 05:09:18 PM
You know Viking, it would help your arguments if you took the time to learn what Christians actually believer rather then confuse it with Jewish dietary law.
I'm chasing you down the god of the gaps or your shifting ground obfuscation. If what you believe is not christian dogma or conflicts with the bible (here my good lutheran bible study comes to full fruition) then you are going to have to chase me down and convince me that you know better than the pope or patriarch or bishop or pastor. It's not my job to read your mind when discussing christianity when the tradition, the dogma, the policies and the bible make it clear.
In fact the entire point I am trying to make in this thread is that most normal people (like the norwegian resistence) derive their moral views from their own natural moral sentiments and treat the bible as a buffet to find justifications for what they believe ipso facto. The dietary laws are the ridiculous ones that people happily ignore without explaining how and where these particular laws (as opposed to the ones they must still observe) got picked to be ignored.
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2012, 05:15:53 PM
It's his stock-in-trade though.
He can't or won't argue with what people actually believe. Instead he pretends every Christian is a biblical fundamentalist.
I'm sorry but this is below you all. Given that you have made no attempt at either dealing with my arguments or explaining where you get the magical knowledge that tells you which part of the bible you get to ignore and which part you don't. The entire point of the thread is me making an argument trying to explain why you pick one part to ignore and one part not to.
If god did exist that would be the most important life changing and constant fact in the world. The fact that the creator of the world had created me personally as part of his plan for the continuation of the universe and had put down the information I needed to fulfill that role in a book and that my reward if I performed my part would be eternal happiness and my punishment if I failed would be eternal torment would be the most significant single fact in the universe rendering everything else irrelevant. What I cannot understand is how someone who actually believes there is a god cannot be a radical fundamentalist biblical literalist.
If someone can explain that to me I'd be eternally grateful; because until I get an explanation like that I can only conclude that professing believers are all lying amoral scumbags.
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2012, 11:22:09 AM
Quote from: The Gospel of Luke, World English Bible
25 Behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read it?"
27 He answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind;✡Deuteronomy 6:5 and your neighbor as yourself."✡Leviticus 19:18
28 He said to him, "You have answered correctly. Do this, and you will live."
29 But he, desiring to justify himself, asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbor?"
30 Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, 34 came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.' 36 Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?"
37 He said, "He who showed mercy on him."
Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."
http://www.ebible.org/web/LUK10.htm#V25
I gotta point out that going by this story the "certain priest" and the "Levite" are not his Neighbor and excluded from the new universal in-group. Be moral to those who are moral to you? The parable is an answer to the question of "who is my neighbor", it's not the priest or the levite, it's the guy who earns it by behaving well. This is NOT creating a universal in-group. It is re-defining the in-group.
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 07:41:52 PM
I gotta point out that going by this story the "certain priest" and the "Levite" are not his Neighbor and excluded from the new universal in-group. Be moral to those who are moral to you? The parable is an answer to the question of "who is my neighbor", it's not the priest or the levite, it's the guy who earns it by behaving well. This is NOT creating a universal in-group. It is re-defining the in-group.
Except that from the Samaritan's POV, the victim was not a member of any in-group.
I don't know, have you tried getting some clay, sand and water to go along with that; then you could build something really lasting.
edit;
meant in reply to Viking's 2nd to last post, which I failed to quote.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 01, 2012, 02:27:49 AM
QuoteWhere do atheists get their morals from?
God. :D
I laughed, I admit. Viking's original post assumes so many facts that it's essential immune to logic.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 07:43:50 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 07:41:52 PM
I gotta point out that going by this story the "certain priest" and the "Levite" are not his Neighbor and excluded from the new universal in-group. Be moral to those who are moral to you? The parable is an answer to the question of "who is my neighbor", it's not the priest or the levite, it's the guy who earns it by behaving well. This is NOT creating a universal in-group. It is re-defining the in-group.
Except that from the Samaritan's POV, the victim was not a member of any in-group.
Again, the question is "who is my neighbor" clearly the priest and levite are not his neighbor. The question is not how should we behave towards random people. Your membership of the in-group, according to this parable is contingent on your behaviour.
Quote from: mongers on August 01, 2012, 07:44:09 PM
I don't know, have you tried getting some clay, sand and water to go along with that; then you could build something really lasting.
edit;
meant in reply to Viking's 2nd to last post, which I failed to quote.
you are going to have to be more specific, I have no clue what you are referring to.
Quote from: Scipio on August 01, 2012, 07:47:47 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 01, 2012, 02:27:49 AM
QuoteWhere do atheists get their morals from?
God. :D
I laughed, I admit. Viking's original post assumes so many facts that it's essential immune to logic.
I don't like being wrong, can you mention a few of them so I can be less wrong next time? No need to mention all of them, but can you at least mention one of them?
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 07:49:58 PM
Again, the question is "who is my neighbor" clearly the priest and levite are not his neighbor. The question is not how should we behave towards random people. Your membership of the in-group, according to this parable is contingent on your behaviour.
Jesus instructs his followers to do as the Samaritan did. What the Samaritan did was render a kindness without first investigating whether the victim was a member of his in group or not.
For your interpretation to work it would have been necessary for Jesus to instruct his followers to go find this hypothetical Samaritan and be kind only to him.
Are you hearing stuff that's only in your head or what? Nobody is trying to find "God in the gaps". In fact nobody has brought up actual science (you brought up pseudoscience). First of all, I'm not a Lutheran I'm a Catholic, which has never been big on literal interpretations of the bible. This is neither a new thing, nor a minority view. Second, I don't think Lutherans believe you can't eat cheese burgers. You pick and choose bible passages without context and assume that's what Christians believe and then insult people over it.
The reason why you can't understand why everyone isn't a biblical literalistic is because you are to goddamn lazy to actually find out why. There are hundreds of religious doctrines on why people believe things, but you don't take the time to actually learn what you are arguing against. When you get like this you are no better then a creationist who hasn't actually bothered tor read modern evolutionary theory and instead cherry picks quotes and ideas from the last 150 years and says he can't understand how someone can be a Darwinist and not a eugenicist and a racist.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 07:57:45 PM
When you get like this you are no better then a creationist who hasn't actually bothered tor read modern evolutionary theory and instead cherry picks quotes and ideas from the last 150 years and says he can't understand how someone can be a Darwinist and not a eugenicist and a racist.
Excellent point.
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 07:37:07 PM
The fact that the creator of the world had created me personally as part of his plan for the continuation of the universe and had put down the information I needed to fulfill that role in a book and that my reward if I performed my part would be eternal happiness and my punishment if I failed would be eternal torment would be the most significant single fact in the universe rendering everything else irrelevant. What I cannot understand is how someone who actually believes there is a god cannot be a radical fundamentalist biblical literalist.
someone can explain that to me I'd be eternally grateful; because until I get an explanation like that I can only conclude that professing believers are all lying amoral scumbags
If you believe all the things in the first sentence, then you are a fundamentalist literalist.
What you don't seem to realize is that there are people who consider themselves religious who don't believe all of these things.
You also don't seem to take into account the possibility that some people aren't that swift and don't fully understand the implications of what they profess to believe. Being less than the brightest bulb is nothing to boast about, but it doesn't make a person a "lying amoral scumbag"
The strawman fallacy gets thrown around a lot pretty loosely, but I have to say there seem to a bunch of them littered around in this thread.
It's typically the case that in order to refute an argument effectively, you have to really understand it as from the opposing POV - sometimes that can be difficult for particularly repugnant views, but the danger of not doing so is just talking past the other side or bashing down strawmen.
Also I concur with those who raise their eyebrows at the notion that universal morality is genetic. Certainly if one is arguing from a rationalistic perspective, a claim like that should come amply accompanied by scientific evidentiary support.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 07:57:45 PM
Are you hearing stuff that's only in your head or what? Nobody is trying to find "God in the gaps". In fact nobody has brought up actual science (you brought up pseudoscience). First of all, I'm not a Lutheran I'm a Catholic, which has never been big on literal interpretations of the bible. This is neither a new thing, nor a minority view. Second, I don't think Lutherans believe you can't eat cheese burgers. You pick and choose bible passages without context and assume that's what Christians believe and then insult people over it.
The reason why you can't understand why everyone isn't a biblical literalistic is because you are to goddamn lazy to actually find out why. There are hundreds of religious doctrines on why people believe things, but you don't take the time to actually learn what you are arguing against. When you get like this you are no better then a creationist who hasn't actually bothered tor read modern evolutionary theory and instead cherry picks quotes and ideas from the last 150 years and says he can't understand how someone can be a Darwinist and not a eugenicist and a racist.
I'm not too god damn lazy to find this out. Nobody answers the question. Nobody has given any answer on how you can find out which bits of the old testament laws are to be ignored and which are to be followed. Nobody has given any answer on how you determine which bits of the bible are allegorical and which are literal.
You tell me to go figure out from some mythical theological sages that answer the question. You are a god botherer and I observe that it took some time before you actually were provoked enough to admit you were a papist. You refuse to defend any catholic dogma and you also refuse to testify to your faith. You are expecting me to read your mind to figure out what you believe. This leaves me with your book and the representatives you recognize (by being catholic).
If you are an honest catholic then you should be able to honestly explain to me how you figure out which old testament commandments you can ignore, which you can re-interpret and which need to be followed. I know how the catholic clergy and theologians explain this; well they don't. They obfuscate, avoid the question and then change the topic.
If you want I can explain to you how my acceptance of the theory evolution does not mean I must be a eugenicist and/or racist. AFTER you answer the question above.
Western atheist follow western culture, who have judeo-christian values.
People can leave a religion, but they cannot leave a culture.
The core of people's believe is their culture, more so than their religion, or lack thereof.
Where is the fucking Game of Thrones thread?
Quote from: Siege on August 01, 2012, 08:16:46 PM
Western atheist follow western culture, who have judeo-christian values.
People can leave a religion, but they cannot leave a culture.
The core of people's believe is their culture, more so than their religion, or lack thereof.
People take new cultures all the time, mostly when they move to a new land.
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2012, 08:29:21 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 01, 2012, 08:16:46 PM
Western atheist follow western culture, who have judeo-christian values.
People can leave a religion, but they cannot leave a culture.
The core of people's believe is their culture, more so than their religion, or lack thereof.
People take new cultures all the time, mostly when they move to a new land.
Yes, they get asimilated by the dominant culture, or not if they are muslims.
You are proving my point.
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 08:12:38 PM
I'm not too god damn lazy to find this out. Nobody answers the question. Nobody has given any answer on how you can find out which bits of the old testament laws are to be ignored and which are to be followed. Nobody has given any answer on how you determine which bits of the bible are allegorical and which are literal.
etc.
etc.
The irony here is that your mind works the same way a religious fundamentalist does, you've just reached the opposite conclusions.
There are lots of answers to the these questions, there is just no THE ANSWER. Hence the great diversity in belief and the many disputes that arise.
If you want to get an understanding of one possible answer, I guess you could try reading Maimondes' Guide to the Perplexed, but it isn't for the fainthearted.
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 08:12:38 PM
I'm not too god damn lazy to find this out. Nobody answers the question. Nobody has given any answer on how you can find out which bits of the old testament laws are to be ignored and which are to be followed. Nobody has given any answer on how you determine which bits of the bible are allegorical and which are literal.
etc.
etc.
Why do you assume some parts are literal and some not?
I'll give you a clue.
Only the Torah, the first five books in the Tenach or "Old Testament", is direct word from G-d, to be understood literally.
The rest are comentaries.
Quote from: Siege on August 01, 2012, 08:41:06 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 08:12:38 PM
I'm not too god damn lazy to find this out. Nobody answers the question. Nobody has given any answer on how you can find out which bits of the old testament laws are to be ignored and which are to be followed. Nobody has given any answer on how you determine which bits of the bible are allegorical and which are literal.
etc.
etc.
Why do you assume some parts are literal and some not?
I'll give you a clue.
Only the Torah, the first five books in the Tenach or "Old Testament", is direct word from G-d, to be understood literally.
The rest are comentaries.
But that's the part that is the least accurate.
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2012, 08:43:18 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 01, 2012, 08:41:06 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 08:12:38 PM
I'm not too god damn lazy to find this out. Nobody answers the question. Nobody has given any answer on how you can find out which bits of the old testament laws are to be ignored and which are to be followed. Nobody has given any answer on how you determine which bits of the bible are allegorical and which are literal.
etc.
etc.
Why do you assume some parts are literal and some not?
I'll give you a clue.
Only the Torah, the first five books in the Tenach or "Old Testament", is direct word from G-d, to be understood literally.
The rest are comentaries.
But that's the part that is the least accurate.
Pleaze. What do you know?
You can't even tell Sefaradi from Ashkenazi.
Quote from: Siege on August 01, 2012, 08:47:00 PM
Pleaze. What do you know?
You can't even tell Sefaradi from Ashkenazi.
Those are the parts that are falsifiable. Like the way the whole beginning has been shown to be false.
I can't tell you from and Arab, but that's just because there's no difference. The Israelis as a whole are a lesser breed of Jew, more prone to Middle Eastern behavior (Judaism, for example).
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 07:52:29 PM
Quote from: Scipio on August 01, 2012, 07:47:47 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 01, 2012, 02:27:49 AM
QuoteWhere do atheists get their morals from?
God. :D
I laughed, I admit. Viking's original post assumes so many facts that it's essential immune to logic.
I don't like being wrong, can you mention a few of them so I can be less wrong next time? No need to mention all of them, but can you at least mention one of them?
Quote from: Viking assuming facts not in evidenceAll humans have a natural evolved morality combined from instinct and societal norms.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2012, 08:12:19 PM
If you believe all the things in the first sentence, then you are a fundamentalist literalist.
Well yes. I find it hard to understand how you can be anything other than a fundamentalist literalist if you actually belive in god and accept what the various religions say about what god wants from you. How can you ignore the creator of the universe when he calls?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2012, 08:12:19 PM
What you don't seem to realize is that there are people who consider themselves religious who don't believe all of these things.
Well, given that the content of the OP is all about how most normal people decide for themselves what is moral and pick and choose from whatever book is the local holy book for the justification they need, ignoring what contradicts their natural morality I venture to suggest that I do. They choose to accept the dogmas they are willing to accept. They get neither their faith, religion or their morals from their religious texts, they merely twist and manipulate their existing texts to fit into the faith, religion and morality they already hold.
They are making this stuff up for themselves while they insist that others take the book as truth. This is what makes them lying amoral scumbags. They claim this comes from god, telling this to children, while ignoring what doesn't suit them. What I do not understand is how you can actually believe there is a god while striking out the bits of his message to you that doesn't suite you?
The catastrophy happens when the children and innocents are told to read the book and are told it is true read the bits about killing people for eating shellfish. I believe that is what happens in the mind of a suicide bomber, he lets the book override his own natural morality.
If you are reading through your holy book, supposedly sent by god to be a guide to you in your life, and you find a passage and you find yourself thinking that you can safely ignore that while telling others that it is true and good then you are a lying amoral scumbag.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2012, 08:12:19 PM
You also don't seem to take into account the possibility that some people aren't that swift and don't fully understand the implications of what they profess to believe. Being less than the brightest bulb is nothing to boast about, but it doesn't make a person a "lying amoral scumbag"
The thing about ignorant naïfs is that they tend to tell the truth and be too stupid to dissemble. The ignorant naïf would have given an honest answer that was consistent with his or her belief. This is not what the defenders of the faith are doing here. The naïf would have tried a sentence of the kind
QuoteI think God changed his mind on killing shellfish eaters but not on killing homosexual because......
We don't see that. The question is "how do you know god changed his mind on eating shellfish?" the answer? "OMG Viking hates religion!!!!!111oneoneone"
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2012, 08:12:19 PM
The strawman fallacy gets thrown around a lot pretty loosely, but I have to say there seem to a bunch of them littered around in this thread.
It's typically the case that in order to refute an argument effectively, you have to really understand it as from the opposing POV - sometimes that can be difficult for particularly repugnant views, but the danger of not doing so is just talking past the other side or bashing down strawmen.
I have yet to see any post here of the kind "I think you are wrong in the OP because of X, Y and Z". They either just say I'm wrong without saying how or they say I have it in for religion without addressing the issues I raised.
I think I get this response since if I'm right their religion is BS. Morality is effectively the last leg religion has to stand on in the west. That is why the response is so vociferous.
What is wrong with the argument I made? Is there some unstated premise that I use which I can't justify? Is there a logical problem in my reasoning? What?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2012, 08:12:19 PM
Also I concur with those who raise their eyebrows at the notion that universal morality is genetic. Certainly if one is arguing from a rationalistic perspective, a claim like that should come amply accompanied by scientific evidentiary support.
My case is that it is genetic and memetic. Our moral sentiments are composed of instinctive, evolved and learned morality. We have identified instinctive behaviours to like all children, men actually have an instinctive behaviour to belive any baby he thinks might be his looks like him. Playing musical chairs with newborns in hospitals can be done legally and ethically and has been done. Our attachment to puppies and kittens is much the same since they share the infantile attributes we often ascribe to babies and feel protective of. This is merely one example of many.
What I possibly did not make clear (I thought it was obvious) is that I am talking about a descriptive morality and ethics, not a normative one (at this point your use of the word "rationalistic" becomes uncomfortable to me given is meaning opposed to "empiricistic" rather than the often confusing use meaning using reason).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics
This is a quick overview, but the thing is that this is a developed field, Huxley was working on this in the 19th century. The problem is testing the hypothesis since no conceivable experiment that is both ethical, legal and likely to be completed within the lifetime of anybody alive is possible. This field only becomes controversial when religion is allowed to opine on it.
Quote from: Siege on August 01, 2012, 08:41:06 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 08:12:38 PM
I'm not too god damn lazy to find this out. Nobody answers the question. Nobody has given any answer on how you can find out which bits of the old testament laws are to be ignored and which are to be followed. Nobody has given any answer on how you determine which bits of the bible are allegorical and which are literal.
etc.
etc.
Why do you assume some parts are literal and some not?
I'll give you a clue.
Only the Torah, the first five books in the Tenach or "Old Testament", is direct word from G-d, to be understood literally.
The rest are comentaries.
Joan, this is the naïf giving the honest but obviously unsophisticated and stupid answer that I would expect. I'm not getting this level of comic gold from BB or Raz.
Quote from: Scipio on August 01, 2012, 08:53:56 PM
Quote from: Viking assuming facts not in evidenceAll humans have a natural evolved morality combined from instinct and societal norms.
I take it you didn't read the next five paragraphs were I try to justify that assertion?
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 09:07:05 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 01, 2012, 08:41:06 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 08:12:38 PM
I'm not too god damn lazy to find this out. Nobody answers the question. Nobody has given any answer on how you can find out which bits of the old testament laws are to be ignored and which are to be followed. Nobody has given any answer on how you determine which bits of the bible are allegorical and which are literal.
etc.
etc.
Why do you assume some parts are literal and some not?
I'll give you a clue.
Only the Torah, the first five books in the Tenach or "Old Testament", is direct word from G-d, to be understood literally.
The rest are comentaries.
Joan, this is the naïf giving the honest but obviously unsophisticated and stupid answer that I would expect. I'm not getting this level of comic gold from BB or Raz.
Whatever.
Don't ask if you don't want an answer.
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 09:04:58 PM
Well, given that the content of the OP is all about how most normal people decide for themselves what is moral and pick and choose from whatever book is the local holy book for the justification they need, ignoring what contradicts their natural morality I venture to suggest that I do. They choose to accept the dogmas they are willing to accept. They get neither their faith, religion or their morals from their religious texts, they merely twist and manipulate their existing texts to fit into the faith, religion and morality they already hold.
They are making this stuff up for themselves while they insist that others take the book as truth. This is what makes them lying amoral scumbags. They claim this comes from god, telling this to children, while ignoring what doesn't suit them. What I do not understand is how you can actually believe there is a god while striking out the bits of his message to you that doesn't suite you?
The catastrophy happens when the children and innocents are told to read the book and are told it is true read the bits about killing people for eating shellfish. I believe that is what happens in the mind of a suicide bomber, he lets the book override his own natural morality.
If you are reading through your holy book, supposedly sent by god to be a guide to you in your life, and you find a passage and you find yourself thinking that you can safely ignore that while telling others that it is true and good then you are a lying amoral scumbag.
....
But you're making the assumption that if there is a god/gods then all holy books must be the literal 'word of god'
Assuming there is a god, there could be all sorts of reasons why there is a given holy book associated that god; for instance for all we know it might just be an experiment in 'chinese whispers' by that particular god.
Quote from: Siege on August 01, 2012, 09:12:56 PM
Whatever.
Don't ask if you don't want an answer.
He did want an answer, one that would allow him to feel superior to you. Viking is a bigot.
Quote from: Siege on August 01, 2012, 09:12:56 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 09:07:05 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 01, 2012, 08:41:06 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 08:12:38 PM
I'm not too god damn lazy to find this out. Nobody answers the question. Nobody has given any answer on how you can find out which bits of the old testament laws are to be ignored and which are to be followed. Nobody has given any answer on how you determine which bits of the bible are allegorical and which are literal.
etc.
etc.
Why do you assume some parts are literal and some not?
I'll give you a clue.
Only the Torah, the first five books in the Tenach or "Old Testament", is direct word from G-d, to be understood literally.
The rest are comentaries.
Joan, this is the naïf giving the honest but obviously unsophisticated and stupid answer that I would expect. I'm not getting this level of comic gold from BB or Raz.
Whatever.
Don't ask if you don't want an answer.
I'm sorry, I was rude to you here. I did ask, you did answer and I just mocked you, that was wrong of me.
I don't care. You are still an asshole and hurt my feelings.
I will get my revenge, in this life or the ne...
Wait, there is only one life.
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 09:11:55 PM
Quote from: Scipio on August 01, 2012, 08:53:56 PM
Quote from: Viking assuming facts not in evidenceAll humans have a natural evolved morality combined from instinct and societal norms.
I take it you didn't read the next five paragraphs were I try to justify that assertion?
http://bioethics.as.nyu.edu/object/bioethics.events.20120330.conference
Quote from: mongers on August 01, 2012, 09:13:58 PM
But you're making the assumption that if there is a god/gods then all holy books must be the literal 'word of god'
Assuming there is a god, there could be all sorts of reasons why there is a given holy book associated that god; for instance for all we know it might just be an experiment in 'chinese whispers' by that particular god.
Why should I not make that assumption. The book is the only thing we have heard from god for X hundred years. If you think one of them is true then you take it seriously. All religions are distinctly lacking in sentiments of the kind "we have this book and we think it is a pretty good effort at understanding the will of god, we might be wrong, but we leave it up to you to decide if it is the word of god or not." Religious books have one thing in common they neither caveat, equivocate or hedge. It's only when the books are proven to be unadulterated BS that attempts to explain the errors away like your chinese whispers example are brought forth.
If you accept the chinese whispers experiment analogy you have no good reason to treat any holy scripture as anything but made up fiction. You can't have it both ways.
Quote from: Scipio on August 01, 2012, 09:22:27 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 09:11:55 PM
Quote from: Scipio on August 01, 2012, 08:53:56 PM
Quote from: Viking assuming facts not in evidenceAll humans have a natural evolved morality combined from instinct and societal norms.
I take it you didn't read the next five paragraphs were I try to justify that assertion?
http://bioethics.as.nyu.edu/object/bioethics.events.20120330.conference
Well, I'm not going to comment on that until I have watched (all 16 hours of) that. I have bookmarked it though. I can't help but think a quick abstract of the talk would be useful though. Maybe you can enlighten me how a series of talks with titles that suggest that morality is a function of the brain does not support the assertion that morality is evolved? Perhaps you don't think the brain is evolved?
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 09:22:38 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 01, 2012, 09:13:58 PM
But you're making the assumption that if there is a god/gods then all holy books must be the literal 'word of god'
Assuming there is a god, there could be all sorts of reasons why there is a given holy book associated that god; for instance for all we know it might just be an experiment in 'chinese whispers' by that particular god.
Why should I not make that assumption. The book is the only thing we have heard from god for X hundred years. If you think one of them is true then you take it seriously. All religions are distinctly lacking in sentiments of the kind "we have this book and we think it is a pretty good effort at understanding the will of god, we might be wrong, but we leave it up to you to decide if it is the word of god or not." Religious books have one thing in common they neither caveat, equivocate or hedge. It's only when the books are proven to be unadulterated BS that attempts to explain the errors away like your chinese whispers example are brought forth.
If you accept the chinese whispers experiment analogy you have no good reason to treat any holy scripture as anything but made up fiction. You can't have it both ways.
Because it's Your assumption, whereas I'm not assuming anything and the range of possibilities I suggested do include your suggestion, whereas yours excludes everything else.
And on the 2nd point I've emboldened, again you're assuming your interpretation is the only one, but for instance, if you look at born-again Christianity, there's numerous instance of people/preachers saying they've had direct recent communication with god. Now assuming god exists, then some, all or none of these reported communications/relationships with God could be 'real', I don't know.
Now I've know quite a few born-again types and it appears their direct, unmitigated relationship with God seems to be the important part for them rather than the solely the Bible.
Quote from: mongers on August 01, 2012, 09:34:11 PM
Because it's Your assumption, whereas I'm not assuming anything and the range of possibilities I suggested do include your suggestion, whereas yours excludes everything else.
And on the 2nd point I've emboldened, again you're assuming your interpretation is the only one, but for instance, if you look at born-again Christianity, there's numerous instance of people/preachers saying they've had direct recent communication with god. Now assuming god exists, then some, all or none of these reported communications/relationships with God could be 'real', I don't know.
Now I've know quite a few born-again types and it appears their direct, unmitigated relationship with God seems to be the important part for them rather than the solely the Bible.
Well I'd expect some form of bona fides before taking any mystic hearing voices seriously (e.g. miracles) barring that I'd expect to hear that message myself.
The central point I am trying to make is that my beliefs inform my actions. If I believe it I will act on that belief. If my beliefs were different my action would be different. You can make up any beliefs and then ask me if I held them would I act differently; well of course. You suggest that religion might be a sick joke played by a supreme being just see what happened, well nobody claims to believe that.
But don't you see what you have done here. You have abolished the religion replacing it with a personal relationship with god. You have to re-write everything that religion says about god and reality to get there. My argument was that if I the book was the word of god it must be taken seriously. Replying that the book isn't the word of god and something else might be isn't really relevant when the issue is if the book should be taken seriously if it is the word of god. In your example I'd be a fundamentalist literalist following the voices in my head and I can assure you that this happens all the time, I'm not alone here. Fortunately for me I don't have voices in my head and if I did I would not think they were from God; being an atheist does have mental health perks.
as an intermezzo:
regarding the Samaritans: didn't we have a thread on that a while ago? Or was that some article I read in Der Spiegel (iirc) saying that they might not only have found the Samaritan Temple, but also -after some more studies- found out that the Samaritan version of Judaïsme was apparently the older one (to be supplanted by an anti-samaritan version coming from the gang in Jerusalem)?
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 08:12:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 07:57:45 PM
Are you hearing stuff that's only in your head or what? Nobody is trying to find "God in the gaps". In fact nobody has brought up actual science (you brought up pseudoscience). First of all, I'm not a Lutheran I'm a Catholic, which has never been big on literal interpretations of the bible. This is neither a new thing, nor a minority view. Second, I don't think Lutherans believe you can't eat cheese burgers. You pick and choose bible passages without context and assume that's what Christians believe and then insult people over it.
The reason why you can't understand why everyone isn't a biblical literalistic is because you are to goddamn lazy to actually find out why. There are hundreds of religious doctrines on why people believe things, but you don't take the time to actually learn what you are arguing against. When you get like this you are no better then a creationist who hasn't actually bothered tor read modern evolutionary theory and instead cherry picks quotes and ideas from the last 150 years and says he can't understand how someone can be a Darwinist and not a eugenicist and a racist.
I'm not too god damn lazy to find this out. Nobody answers the question. Nobody has given any answer on how you can find out which bits of the old testament laws are to be ignored and which are to be followed. Nobody has given any answer on how you determine which bits of the bible are allegorical and which are literal.
You tell me to go figure out from some mythical theological sages that answer the question. You are a god botherer and I observe that it took some time before you actually were provoked enough to admit you were a papist. You refuse to defend any catholic dogma and you also refuse to testify to your faith. You are expecting me to read your mind to figure out what you believe. This leaves me with your book and the representatives you recognize (by being catholic).
If you are an honest catholic then you should be able to honestly explain to me how you figure out which old testament commandments you can ignore, which you can re-interpret and which need to be followed. I know how the catholic clergy and theologians explain this; well they don't. They obfuscate, avoid the question and then change the topic.
If you want I can explain to you how my acceptance of the theory evolution does not mean I must be a eugenicist and/or racist. AFTER you answer the question above.
You could look in places that aren't Languish. I'm not a theologian, but I think the mainstream answer is that Jesus Christ is considered the new covenant and supersedes many of the old Noahide laws. Some like a ban on homosexuality are retained and can be found in the letters of Paul, but other ritual laws like eating pigs are not retained as they aren't found in the New Testament. If you are really curious, you could pick up major books on theology such the works of Augustine of Hippo or St. Thomas Aquinas. JR chose the guide for the Perplexed. I don't know about Islam, but I assume there are similar works.
Now an "intuitive" understanding of religion is common amongst some protestant faiths, but I don't know much about that and I stay clear of faith healers and snake handlers. You seem to be coming at it from this this angle.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 02, 2012, 03:53:06 AM
Some like a ban on homosexuality are retained and can be found in the letters of Paul, but other ritual laws like eating pigs are not retained as they aren't found in the New Testament.
Of course eating pigs is not in the Noahide laws either and not even in the OT was ever supposed to apply to non-Jews.
Also Paul only says the Jew Dietary Laws do not apply to GENTILE Christians, and this is consistent with Jewish Law.
The only Noahide Law not specifically adopted by Christians is the one about eating parts of living animals...but still I doubt very many people do that.
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2012, 08:02:34 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 01, 2012, 06:45:07 PM
I have had sex with Jews. :cool:
I haven't. :lol:
You should have becoe a doctor then. :P
At least Caliga can say 'I'm in health care' and they'll assume he's a doctor. Although Israel probably considers that rape.
Quote from: Valmy on August 02, 2012, 08:06:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 02, 2012, 03:53:06 AM
Some like a ban on homosexuality are retained and can be found in the letters of Paul, but other ritual laws like eating pigs are not retained as they aren't found in the New Testament.
Of course eating pigs is not in the Noahide laws either and not even in the OT was ever supposed to apply to non-Jews.
Also Paul only says the Jew Dietary Laws do not apply to GENTILE Christians, and this is consistent with Jewish Law.
The only Noahide Law not specifically adopted by Christians is the one about eating parts of living animals...but still I doubt very many people do that.
The Koreans are shit outta luck. :P Remember that live octopus thing? Least. Kosher. Meal.
Ever.
Quote from: Neil on August 02, 2012, 08:16:29 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2012, 08:02:34 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 01, 2012, 06:45:07 PM
I have had sex with Jews. :cool:
I haven't. :lol:
You should have becoe a doctor then. :P
At least Caliga can say 'I'm in health care' and they'll assume he's a doctor. Although Israel probably considers that rape.
Naw, I shoulda joined the "seduction community", rather than gotten married. :P
Actually, I grew up among some truly obnoxious JAPs, which forever put a crimp in my appreciation of Jewish women ... :lol:
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 09:56:58 PM
Well I'd expect some form of bona fides before taking any mystic hearing voices seriously (e.g. miracles) barring that I'd expect to hear that message myself.
You can only hear once you start to listen.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 02, 2012, 02:03:10 AM
as an intermezzo:
regarding the Samaritans: didn't we have a thread on that a while ago? Or was that some article I read in Der Spiegel (iirc) saying that they might not only have found the Samaritan Temple, but also -after some more studies- found out that the Samaritan version of Judaïsme was apparently the older one (to be supplanted by an anti-samaritan version coming from the gang in Jerusalem)?
Yes we did.
At one point I thought a Samaritan was just a "good person" - I missed entirely that the Parable was a reference to a distinct group of people. At some point I learned the historical significance of the Samaritans.
But it took that thread for me to learn that there is an incredibly tiny population of live Samaritans on this planet.
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 09:06:25 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 09:56:58 PM
Well I'd expect some form of bona fides before taking any mystic hearing voices seriously (e.g. miracles) barring that I'd expect to hear that message myself.
You can only hear once you start to listen.
I'm sorry but that is mere tripe. It is a trivially true statement and meaningless in and of itself.
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 01:30:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 09:06:25 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 09:56:58 PM
Well I'd expect some form of bona fides before taking any mystic hearing voices seriously (e.g. miracles) barring that I'd expect to hear that message myself.
You can only hear once you start to listen.
I'm sorry but that is mere tripe. It is a trivially true statement and meaningless in and of itself.
If you fail to plan, then you plan to fail.
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 01:30:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 09:06:25 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 09:56:58 PM
Well I'd expect some form of bona fides before taking any mystic hearing voices seriously (e.g. miracles) barring that I'd expect to hear that message myself.
You can only hear once you start to listen.
I'm sorry but that is mere tripe. It is a trivially true statement and meaningless in and of itself.
Most people who report speaking with God, or having a personal relationship with Jesus, or whatever language they use, have gone out trying to commune with God through prayer. You can hardly argue "God doesn't exist because he won't talk to me" if you haven't made any attempt to talk with Him.
The trouble with all of your arguments is you seem to expect so very little out of humanity. We can't believe in something uness it is right in front of us. We can't understand a book unless it's completely literally.
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 01:44:35 PM
Most people who report speaking with God, or having a personal relationship with Jesus, or whatever language they use, have gone out trying to commune with God through prayer. You can hardly argue "God doesn't exist because he won't talk to me" if you haven't made any attempt to talk with Him.
You got any reference for that assertion?
Most people who report to me of speaking with God, or having a personal relationship with Jesus, or whatever language they use, have asserted that God came to them when they were in the gutter helping them out of it. Or at least this is a 100% match with the Pentacostal wing of my family (no snake handlers though).
The entire point of the tripe you uttered was that to be able to hear god must already believe and if you already believe you will convince yourself that you heard something for one of many identified psychological reasons.
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 01:44:35 PM
The trouble with all of your arguments is you seem to expect so very little out of humanity. We can't believe in something uness it is right in front of us. We can't understand a book unless it's completely literally.
Here you are just making shit up. I expect much much more than you do out of humanity, I demand that humans justify their morals end ethics with something other than just referring to an external source ("it's in the bible") or mere subjective emotion ("thats, like, just your opinion man"). You don't understand a book if you can't explain why it means what it means; if you can't explain why you arbitrarily include one verse but exclude another you don't understand it; if you haven't read it you don't understand it; AND if you can't see and reconcile the obvious contradictions, factual errors and downright evil in the book then you don't understand it. This applies to both the bible and huckleberry finn.
Faith is belief without evidence, I can't respect that and I can't respect anybody who thinks that is a virtue.
Quote from: derspiess on August 02, 2012, 01:36:18 PM
If you fail to plan, then you plan to fail.
this is not mere tripe, glib, but not tripe. This contains far more wisdom than the hearing listening bs BB came up with.
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 01:44:35 PM
You can hardly argue "God doesn't exist because he won't talk to me" if you haven't made any attempt to talk with Him.
OTOH, you can hardly argue that "my god does exist because I hear voices in my head" either.
Quote from: grumbler on August 02, 2012, 02:31:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 01:44:35 PM
You can hardly argue "God doesn't exist because he won't talk to me" if you haven't made any attempt to talk with Him.
OTOH, you can hardly argue that "my god does exist because I hear voices in my head" either.
Sure you can. :)
It may or not be persuasive, but you can argue it.
Quote from: grumbler on August 02, 2012, 02:31:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 01:44:35 PM
You can hardly argue "God doesn't exist because he won't talk to me" if you haven't made any attempt to talk with Him.
OTOH, you can hardly argue that "my god does exist because I hear voices in my head" either.
Mohammed ibn Abdullah did precisely that. He killed the people who brought up the point you do. Fortunately for you you were on dromons in the agean at the time and arabs don't float.
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 02:21:51 PM
Faith is belief without evidence, I can't respect that and I can't respect anybody who thinks that is a virtue.
I guess I'll have to survive with you not respecting me then. :)
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 02:52:50 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 02:21:51 PM
Faith is belief without evidence, I can't respect that and I can't respect anybody who thinks that is a virtue.
I guess I'll have to survive with you not respecting me then. :)
So, are you going to drop the charges against the rapist who insists that he has faith that she really wanted it when she said no?
You have no respect for the rapist's faith and you do not think that believing the rapist is a virtue. I suggest that you apply my standards to faith when you are in the courtroom but in the rest of your life seem to assert that your faith claim deserves respect while you do not respect the faith claims of accused rapists.
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 02:57:14 PM
So, are you going to drop the charges against the rapist who insists that he has faith that she really wanted it when she said no?
You have no respect for the rapist's faith and you do not think that believing the rapist is a virtue. I suggest that you apply my standards to faith when you are in the courtroom but in the rest of your life seem to assert that your faith claim deserves respect while you do not respect the faith claims of accused rapists.
Isn't it still rape even if he thought she wanted it? :huh:
Well I suppose it's good that Viking is not religious otherwise he wouldn't respect himself. He might hurt himself.
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 02:57:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 02:52:50 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 02:21:51 PM
Faith is belief without evidence, I can't respect that and I can't respect anybody who thinks that is a virtue.
I guess I'll have to survive with you not respecting me then. :)
So, are you going to drop the charges against the rapist who insists that he has faith that she really wanted it when she said no?
You have no respect for the rapist's faith and you do not think that believing the rapist is a virtue. I suggest that you apply my standards to faith when you are in the courtroom but in the rest of your life seem to assert that your faith claim deserves respect while you do not respect the faith claims of accused rapists.
The accuseds belief that she consented is negated when she says "No". So what he believes really doesn't matter. :)
Second of all... MEOWTF. What the hell kind of analogy is that? :blink:
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 03:33:01 PM
The accuseds belief that she consented is negated when she says "No". So what he believes really doesn't matter. :)
Second of all... MEOWTF. What the hell kind of analogy is that? :blink:
I didn't say anything about guilt. His faith is irrelevant and his faith is also unconnected to the truth of the claim. You expect others to respect you and your beliefs when you insist that you have no evidence for it, but your working life is specifically geared to do the opposite.
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 03:45:40 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 03:33:01 PM
The accuseds belief that she consented is negated when she says "No". So what he believes really doesn't matter. :)
Second of all... MEOWTF. What the hell kind of analogy is that? :blink:
I didn't say anything about guilt. His faith is irrelevant and his faith is also unconnected to the truth of the claim. You expect others to respect you and your beliefs when you insist that you have no evidence for it, but your working life is specifically geared to do the opposite.
In my working life I rarely, if ever, care what people believe - I care what they do, and what they intend to do.
As such, I find it easiest to respect what people believe, as it rarely affects my work otherwise. :)
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 03:48:31 PM
In my working life I rarely, if ever, care what people believe - I care what they do, and what they intend to do.
As such, I find it easiest to respect what people believe, as it rarely affects my work otherwise. :)
And there we return to the point I was trying to make in the OP. You live your life in all cases where reality matters as if god did not exist. You do not get your morals from a book you get them from the same place we all do, our natural evolved moral sense. You do not consider the beliefs and faith of others relevant when they interact with you and with society in general. They have to justify themselves with facts and reason and they can't appeal to the book.
I keep bringing up biblical literalism here again and again simply because to get your morals from the bible you need to read it first. The moral code we live by is not sourced in the bible, much of it is found there, yes, but that is just as relevant as the same code being found the Koran and Hadith, the Eddas, Hesiod, the Bhagavadgita, the annalects of Confusius etc.
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 04:01:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 03:48:31 PM
In my working life I rarely, if ever, care what people believe - I care what they do, and what they intend to do.
As such, I find it easiest to respect what people believe, as it rarely affects my work otherwise. :)
You do not consider the beliefs and faith of others relevant when they interact with you and with society in general. They have to justify themselves with facts and reason and they can't appeal to the book.
No. If I'm dealing with a witness from Libya testifying in a Hijab (like I did last week) she does not need to justify her faith. I simply respect her belief and allow her hair to be covered while she gives evidence.
Quote from: grumbler on August 02, 2012, 02:31:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 01:44:35 PM
You can hardly argue "God doesn't exist because he won't talk to me" if you haven't made any attempt to talk with Him.
OTOH, you can hardly argue that "my god does exist because I hear voices in my head" either.
I only listen to the voices in my head when they tell me to kill. So far, they have never steered me wrong! :D
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 04:12:09 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 04:01:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 03:48:31 PM
In my working life I rarely, if ever, care what people believe - I care what they do, and what they intend to do.
As such, I find it easiest to respect what people believe, as it rarely affects my work otherwise. :)
You do not consider the beliefs and faith of others relevant when they interact with you and with society in general. They have to justify themselves with facts and reason and they can't appeal to the book.
No. If I'm dealing with a witness from Libya testifying in a Hijab (like I did last week) she does not need to justify her faith. I simply respect her belief and allow her hair to be covered while she gives evidence.
She's not using her faith to justify an assertion of fact here. She is using her membership in a class of humanity to justify her access to a special exemption from a requirement of conduct by witnesses. She would need to justify her faith in the truth of the assertion that achmed was embezzling from abdullah's falafel shop.
If she was asserting that her faith told her that BB killed Col. Mustard with a lead pipe in the library then she would need to justify her faith. You are specifically not addressing the issue, the hijab testimony is a red herring.
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 04:24:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 04:12:09 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 04:01:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 03:48:31 PM
In my working life I rarely, if ever, care what people believe - I care what they do, and what they intend to do.
As such, I find it easiest to respect what people believe, as it rarely affects my work otherwise. :)
You do not consider the beliefs and faith of others relevant when they interact with you and with society in general. They have to justify themselves with facts and reason and they can't appeal to the book.
No. If I'm dealing with a witness from Libya testifying in a Hijab (like I did last week) she does not need to justify her faith. I simply respect her belief and allow her hair to be covered while she gives evidence.
She's not using her faith to justify an assertion of fact here. She is using her membership in a class of humanity to justify her access to a special exemption from a requirement of conduct by witnesses. She would need to justify her faith in the truth of the assertion that achmed was embezzling from abdullah's falafel shop.
If she was asserting that her faith told her that BB killed Col. Mustard with a lead pipe in the library then she would need to justify her faith. You are specifically not addressing the issue, the hijab testimony is a red herring.
So you want me to put the existence of God on trial?
Well the thing is - in court you never have first hand evidence. You only have witnesses, and then experts who give opinions based on what the witnesses have said. And in court you absolutely never require absolute proof - depending on the matter you only require proof on a balance of probabilities, or proof beyond a resonable doubt.
Myself, I've always had a doubt God exists, so I can't say I'd find His existence proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
But balance of probabilities? Well like I said you have lots of witnesses who say they've seen Him and talked to Him. You have the historical records showing His words (the Bible). And you'll find plenty of Experts who say looking at the world and its beauty means there is a God.
So yes - I think His existence could be proven on a balance of probabilities. :)
I'm trying to understand why anyone should have to "Justify" their faith in a court of law.
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 04:54:19 PM
Myself, I've always had a doubt God exists, so I can't say I'd find His existence proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
But balance of probabilities? Well like I said you have lots of witnesses who say they've seen Him and talked to Him. You have the historical records showing His words (the Bible). And you'll find plenty of Experts who say looking at the world and its beauty means there is a God.
So yes - I think His existence could be proven on a balance of probabilities. :)
:hmm: Is this a troll?
I think he's actually trying to get at using one's faith as a justification for one's actions in a court of law...though I'm not sure why.
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 04:54:19 PM
So you want me to put the existence of God on trial?
Well the thing is - in court you never have first hand evidence. You only have witnesses, and then experts who give opinions based on what the witnesses have said. And in court you absolutely never require absolute proof - depending on the matter you only require proof on a balance of probabilities, or proof beyond a resonable doubt.
Myself, I've always had a doubt God exists, so I can't say I'd find His existence proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
But balance of probabilities? Well like I said you have lots of witnesses who say they've seen Him and talked to Him. You have the historical records showing His words (the Bible). And you'll find plenty of Experts who say looking at the world and its beauty means there is a God.
So yes - I think His existence could be proven on a balance of probabilities. :)
I wonder if you don't actually read what I write or you can't understand it. Now you are just making up shit and spreading those red herrings about. I did not say we should put god on trial and you know that is not what I suggested. You are trying to change the topic.
Faith is not justification for issues of fact. You already know this and except when you go to church you live by this.
You keep trying to change the topic. The legal culpability of the rapist is irrelevant when the issue was the state of fact regarding to her consent and his faith about it. The exception given to faithtards using head scarfs is irrelevant when the issue is the use of faith to justify acceptence of fact.
As long as other peoples faith doesn't affect your life then you let them be wrong, I agree with that. When any religion is banned atheism is always banned as well.
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 05:00:55 PM
I think he's actually trying to get at using one's faith as a justification for one's actions in a court of law...though I'm not sure why.
Because BB is a lawtalker and in his working life he does not accept that faith is a justification for fact. While he is asserting that faith is a justification for morals. That is why I'm bringing up the law issue.
I was under the impression that BB was a lawyer, not a moralist. He's putting people on trial for criminal acts not morality.
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 05:10:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 04:54:19 PM
So you want me to put the existence of God on trial?
Well the thing is - in court you never have first hand evidence. You only have witnesses, and then experts who give opinions based on what the witnesses have said. And in court you absolutely never require absolute proof - depending on the matter you only require proof on a balance of probabilities, or proof beyond a resonable doubt.
Myself, I've always had a doubt God exists, so I can't say I'd find His existence proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
But balance of probabilities? Well like I said you have lots of witnesses who say they've seen Him and talked to Him. You have the historical records showing His words (the Bible). And you'll find plenty of Experts who say looking at the world and its beauty means there is a God.
So yes - I think His existence could be proven on a balance of probabilities. :)
I wonder if you don't actually read what I write or you can't understand it. Now you are just making up shit and spreading those red herrings about. I did not say we should put god on trial and you know that is not what I suggested. You are trying to change the topic.
Faith is not justification for issues of fact. You already know this and except when you go to church you live by this.
You keep trying to change the topic. The legal culpability of the rapist is irrelevant when the issue was the state of fact regarding to her consent and his faith about it. The exception given to faithtards using head scarfs is irrelevant when the issue is the use of faith to justify acceptence of fact.
As long as other peoples faith doesn't affect your life then you let them be wrong, I agree with that. When any religion is banned atheism is always banned as well.
Actually I am having great difficulty understanding you Viking. You just make a bunch of assertions that don't seem tied to anything I am saying.
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 05:28:39 PM
Actually I am having great difficulty understanding you Viking. You just make a bunch of assertions that don't seem tied to anything I am saying.
If you want to say something and discuss your own issues then start your own thread. You are hurling red herrings pretending they are the issue at hand.
No, Viking, you are just being crazy. And I know crazy.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 02, 2012, 05:58:03 PM
No, Viking, you are just being crazy.
It's true but then that was clear from the opening post of this thread. :D
Quote from: Razgovory on August 02, 2012, 04:57:06 PM
I'm trying to understand why anyone should have to "Justify" their faith.
You could have just ended it there.
sigh... usual suspects though..
naturally nobody has commented on the issues in the OP yet.
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 07:21:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 06:52:54 AM
Perhaps if Hitchens was less concerned about religion poisoning anything and more concerned with tobacco poisoning, him he might still be alive.
You mentioned "memes" :bleeding: as a source of morality. Perhaps you'd like to show us the proof that memes actually exist?
Proselytizing religions are memes. Perhaps you'd like to show us some proof that you understand the word?
I thought Malthus gave a pretty compelling answer. It seems you ignored it because the answer did not trash religion.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 02, 2012, 06:22:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 02, 2012, 04:57:06 PM
I'm trying to understand why anyone should have to "Justify" their faith.
You could have just ended it there.
That's because nothing remotely like that was ever said.
I said you can't use faith to justify fact claims. Raz reads the sentence backwards. I called them lying amoral scumbags earlier in this thread and Raz delivers.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 02, 2012, 06:28:15 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 07:21:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2012, 06:52:54 AM
Perhaps if Hitchens was less concerned about religion poisoning anything and more concerned with tobacco poisoning, him he might still be alive.
You mentioned "memes" :bleeding: as a source of morality. Perhaps you'd like to show us the proof that memes actually exist?
Proselytizing religions are memes. Perhaps you'd like to show us some proof that you understand the word?
I thought Malthus gave a pretty compelling answer. It seems you ignored it because the answer did not trash religion.
What I said is not what Raz said I said.
Malthus gave a good explanation of how morals are memes. He argues that morality evolves as their expression by religion evolves. That is what I argued in the OP. Religion and Culture are how memetic evolution of morals happens. I didn't reply since I agreed and no issues with what he wrote. I don't do "+1" posts. (I have done one or two, but I try not to).
Morals change over time, that pretty much confirms that we don't get descriptive morals from holy books. I argued that we have a natural evolved sense of morals where the process of selection is in success of the society.
You seem to have ignored what I said because you simply assumed that I was trashing religion.
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 06:26:19 PM
sigh... usual suspects though..
naturally nobody has commented on the issues in the OP yet.
You started a thread like you were posing a question and then jotted out a close minded dissertation. What is there to discuss?
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 06:57:38 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 06:26:19 PM
sigh... usual suspects though..
naturally nobody has commented on the issues in the OP yet.
You started a thread like you were posing a question and then jotted out a close minded dissertation. What is there to discuss?
Something other than unthinking vitriol. You have no reason to call it a close minded dissertation. It was me expressing my view of the issue. Nobody has actually suggested I re-evaluate any part of my thesis and nobody has proposed any alternative. The views against me have varied from dismissing it without reason to calling me crazy.
If anything is closed minded is the first anti-viking post
Quote from: HVC on August 01, 2012, 02:43:16 AM
Didn't read your long post but i'll assume it's anti-religious. As to the question at hand, morals are societal. Atheists have the same moral guidelines as any other person in said society. and like their religious counterparts atheists can choose whether or not to follow the guidelines. i doubt most religious people go "if i do this will god get mad at me? I know i sure didn't when i was religious. They know what right at and wrong just like any other person growing up, they were taught what was right and what was wrong.
That is what my closed minded opponents have assumed. They didn't bother reading my post and just assumed it was an anti-religion rant.
Nobody has replied to the OP. My supposed close mindedness is all in your mind.
Okay?
Viking, you have to work past your reputation as an unthinking anti-religious automaton that just spews recycled Dawkins lines at us.
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 07:11:39 PM
Nobody has replied to the OP.
Your OP was just a bunch of silly assertions that you thought "answered" a question no one was asking.
It wasn't worth responding to, so I didn't respond. Others lack my self-discipline, and so you have this train wreck of a thread. It didn't even deliver, except for your personal insults, because your posts are simply opaque.
Quote from: Neil on August 02, 2012, 07:26:14 PM
Viking, you have to work past your reputation as an unthinking anti-religious automaton that just spews recycled Dawkins lines at us.
It's my fault other people are close minded bigots? I didn't go off on a tangent attacking some invented strawman.
Well sure it wasn't a tangent as that was where you started off. :D
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 07:45:24 PM
Well sure it wasn't a tangent as that was where you started off. :D
Ah, the eloquence of the "I know you are but what am I?" school of logic.
You're the one who keeps throwing out the insults. :D
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 07:51:04 PM
You're the one who keeps throwing out the insults. :D
I'm feel free to call people liars, bigots and amoral when in my opinion they lie, are bigoted or are amoral.
If you cannot respect faith, then how can you believe in love? (or more pointedly, that someone else loves you?)
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 02, 2012, 08:13:39 PM
If you cannot respect faith, then how can you believe in love? (or more pointedly, that someone else loves you?)
I don't see how faith has anything to do with love. Why do I need faith to think that someone else loves me?
I have seen this issue brought up many times before. So feel I should include some of the standard sources of confusion regarding this argument.
The use of the word faith as in religious faith and the use of the word faith as in causal or inferred faith can be the source of the confusion. Having faith that somebody loves me is not the same as in having faith that god exists. The former is based on experience and evidence and the latter is not. I have faith that my mother loves me because I have the evidence; what she does, how she does it, what choices she makes, what she says and my best evaluation of her state of mind.
To make it a bit more abstract - Robin has faith that Batman will rescue him from the Joker's trap not because he believes in God or accepts supernatural claims without evidence. Robin has faith that Batman will rescue him because of his knowledge of Batman's skill, values, determination and motivation. Religious faith has nothing to do with it.
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 08:27:46 PM
The use of the word faith as in religious faith and the use of the word faith as in causal or inferred faith can be the source of the confusion. Having faith that somebody loves me is not the same as in having faith that god exists. The former is based on experience and evidence and the latter is not. I have faith that my mother loves me because I have the evidence; what she does, how she does it, what choices she makes, what she says and my best evaluation of her state of mind.
More assertion.
How do you know your mother didnt do all those things out of a sense of duty rather than love. How do you know you are not misinterpreting what you percieve as love. Your best evaluation of another persons state of mind is no better or worse than BB's evaluation of the evidence he has to support his faith.
I happen to disagree with BB on the issue of whether God exists. But I would never doubt the bona fides of his faith that such a God does exist.
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 02, 2012, 08:13:39 PM
If you cannot respect faith, then how can you believe in love? (or more pointedly, that someone else loves you?)
Why would you need faith? I personally know that it's illogical for someone to not love me.
Quote from: DGuller on August 02, 2012, 08:34:29 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 02, 2012, 08:13:39 PM
If you cannot respect faith, then how can you believe in love? (or more pointedly, that someone else loves you?)
Why would you need faith? I personally know that it's illogical for someone to not love me.
:D
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 02, 2012, 08:33:44 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 08:27:46 PM
The use of the word faith as in religious faith and the use of the word faith as in causal or inferred faith can be the source of the confusion. Having faith that somebody loves me is not the same as in having faith that god exists. The former is based on experience and evidence and the latter is not. I have faith that my mother loves me because I have the evidence; what she does, how she does it, what choices she makes, what she says and my best evaluation of her state of mind.
More assertion.
How do you know your mother did do all those things out of a sense of duty rather than love. How do you know you are not misinterpreting what you percieve as love. Your best evaluation of another persons state of mind is no better or worse than BB evaluation of the evidence he has to support his faith.
You know what I might be wrong. Maybe my mother didn't love me. Maybe she was really good at faking it. That is quite possible. Welcome to the world of doubt and uncertainty. There are no 100% certainties. The existence of uncertainty does not mean that there is no knowledge and everything is fully subjective and unknowable.
As for religious faith being belief without evidence I'm gonna have to ask you to take that one up with your religious denomination since none of them seem to think that evidence is required. I'll accept the pope's definition of religious faith.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 02, 2012, 08:33:44 PM
I happen to disagree with BB on the issue of whether God exists. But I would never doubt the bona fides of his faith that such a God does exist.
Way to go in getting it wrong. I was explaining why I don't think that faith in the existence of god is the same kind of faith as one has in one's gf loving you. I don't doubt that BB thinks a god exists, I just think that BB invents the god his psyche demands.
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 08:44:54 PM
I don't doubt that BB thinks a god exists, I just think that BB invents the god his psyche demands.
This is a good example of why no one wants to play with you.
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 08:44:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 02, 2012, 08:33:44 PM
I happen to disagree with BB on the issue of whether God exists. But I would never doubt the bona fides of his faith that such a God does exist.
Way to go in getting it wrong. I was explaining why I don't think that faith in the existence of god is the same kind of faith as one has in one's gf loving you. I don't doubt that BB thinks a god exists, I just think that BB invents the god his psyche demands.
I dont doubt you think your mother loved you. But all the evidence shows me it was likely duty the drove her and your belief she or anyone else loves you is an invention of your psyche.
Can someone sum up this train wreck por favor?
Quote from: katmai on August 02, 2012, 08:56:06 PM
Can someone sum up this train wreck por favor?
No way man. You have to live through the pain like everyone else.
Aw nuts.
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 08:53:59 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 08:44:54 PM
I don't doubt that BB thinks a god exists, I just think that BB invents the god his psyche demands.
This is a good example of why no one wants to play with you.
And I would hope the people who don't read what I write and then declare it bigoted don't post in threads I start. Unfortunately they don't.
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 09:05:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 08:53:59 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 08:44:54 PM
I don't doubt that BB thinks a god exists, I just think that BB invents the god his psyche demands.
This is a good example of why no one wants to play with you.
And I would hope the people who don't read what I write and then declare it bigoted don't post in threads I start. Unfortunately they don't.
for someone who didn't read my post you're really hung up on it :P
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 09:05:08 PM
And I would hope the people who don't read what I write and then declare it bigoted don't post in threads I start. Unfortunately they don't.
I have faith that they read what you wrote before declaring you a bigot.
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 06:26:19 PM
sigh... usual suspects though..
naturally nobody has commented on the issues in the OP yet.
You know, if you keep finding that everyone is wrong but you, perhaps the problem lies not in everyone else, but in you.
Quote from: Neil on August 02, 2012, 07:26:14 PM
Viking, you have to work past your reputation as an unthinking anti-religious automaton that just spews recycled Dawkins lines at us.
And drop the "Memes" bullshit. You aren't 13 and you know better. Regurgitating that pseudoscience makes you sound like an idiot. Or a fantatic Dawkinite.
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 02:22:56 AM
Quoting Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Stephen Weinberg
QuoteReligion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
You know, that would be a pretty devastating critique of religion if it were actually true. But good people do bad things all the time for reasons that have nothing to do with religion--for ideology, for patriotism, to protect their families, to help a friend, to keep their jobs, to go along with the crowd, etc. I suppose that a reasonable argument could be made that ideology and patriotism are substitutes for religion, but the other things not so much.
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 04:54:19 PM
Myself, I've always had a doubt God exists, so I can't say I'd find His existence proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
But balance of probabilities? Well like I said you have lots of witnesses who say they've seen Him and talked to Him. You have the historical records showing His words (the Bible). And you'll find plenty of Experts who say looking at the world and its beauty means there is a God.
So yes - I think His existence could be proven on a balance of probabilities. :)
Wow.
Quote from: The Brain on August 03, 2012, 12:31:36 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 04:54:19 PM
Myself, I've always had a doubt God exists, so I can't say I'd find His existence proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
But balance of probabilities? Well like I said you have lots of witnesses who say they've seen Him and talked to Him. You have the historical records showing His words (the Bible). And you'll find plenty of Experts who say looking at the world and its beauty means there is a God.
So yes - I think His existence could be proven on a balance of probabilities. :)
Wow.
The fact that the Canadian tax payer is paying this guy to evaluate facts and make judgement calls about a balance of probabilities makes it extra funny. Or scary. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on August 03, 2012, 12:42:41 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 03, 2012, 12:31:36 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 04:54:19 PM
Myself, I've always had a doubt God exists, so I can't say I'd find His existence proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
But balance of probabilities? Well like I said you have lots of witnesses who say they've seen Him and talked to Him. You have the historical records showing His words (the Bible). And you'll find plenty of Experts who say looking at the world and its beauty means there is a God.
So yes - I think His existence could be proven on a balance of probabilities. :)
Wow.
The fact that the Canadian tax payer is paying this guy to evaluate facts and make judgement calls about a balance of probabilities makes it extra funny. Or scary. :lol:
like most other believers he sets different standards for how he evaluates claims for the existence of god and other claims. 6 days out of 7 he demands proof for incredible assertions and on sunday he doesn't. What annoys me is his avoidance of this issue. That is why he brought up the hijab and why ignored my question about the truth of the rapist's statement and talked about how it was still rape even if she really meant yes when she said no.
Regarding the truth of the Jesus claim on the balance of probabilities.
1 - who are these witnesses who say they have seen Him and talked to Him? And would you accept that testimony as evidence for his existence in court?
2 - how do you know what is ascribed to him in the bible are his words? And would you accept the explanations you just gave to this question in court?
3 - who are these experts and what are their bona fides? And why would you give them more credence than the biologists, geologists, physicists, chemists and astro-physicists that not only testify that it is all a result of mindless natural forces but can prove it.
Oh look. Now Martinus has joined Viking. Now his Axis of Hate will be invincible, right?
Quote from: Neil on August 03, 2012, 07:52:34 AM
Oh look. Now Martinus has joined Viking. Now his Axis of Hate will be invincible, right?
We are renaming it Axis of Dreadnaught, join us and we can rule the galaxy together as eh.. atheist and landlocked dreadnaught pilot.
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 09:05:08 PM
And I would hope the people who don't read what I write and then declare it bigoted don't post in threads I start. Unfortunately they don't.
This is Languish. That makes us more likely to post in the thread not less.
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2012, 05:24:48 AM
3 - who are these experts and what are their bona fides? And why would you give them more credence than the biologists, geologists, physicists, chemists and astro-physicists that not only testify that it is all a result of mindless natural forces but can prove it.
Ok how can you prove anything about the personal qualities of natural forces? This seems to me like saying they can prove it is a result of 'good' or 'bad' or 'tap-dancing' natural forces.
Quote from: Valmy on August 03, 2012, 08:18:51 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 09:05:08 PM
And I would hope the people who don't read what I write and then declare it bigoted don't post in threads I start. Unfortunately they don't.
This is Languish. That makes us more likely to post in the thread not less.
Well played, touché
Quote from: Valmy on August 03, 2012, 08:29:09 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2012, 05:24:48 AM
3 - who are these experts and what are their bona fides? And why would you give them more credence than the biologists, geologists, physicists, chemists and astro-physicists that not only testify that it is all a result of mindless natural forces but can prove it.
Ok how can you prove anything about the personal qualities of natural forces? This seems to me like saying they can prove it is a result of 'good' or 'bad' or 'tap-dancing' natural forces.
That's what I want BB to tell me, he is making that assertion not me. I'm arguing that the state of the natural world is what it is as a result of mindless natural forces. My scientists don't try to prove that the world is good, bad or tapdancing or that those adjectives can be sensibly be used to describe any natural forces. BB is arguing that there are experts who can testify that the beauty and goodness of the world can be used to add to the probability of gods existence.
Gravity, Evolution and Wave motion are not good or bad, these adjectives do not apply to these natural forces.
Your scientists? :yeahright:
Quote from: garbon on August 03, 2012, 08:43:13 AM
Your scientists? :yeahright:
Yes, I keep a biologist, chemist, physicist and geologist in my pocket at all times. I don't let the stinky astrophysicists near my wiener.
What the fuck do you think I meant? Yes, my scientists are the actual scientists I would call to witness in my hypothetical trial trying to determine the existence of god on the balance of probabilities.
I suggest you are being deliberately obtuse here.
:lol:
I don't see how there could be a trial, let alone a verdict, on the issue of "the existence of god on the balance of probabilities."
The trial would have to balance the probability of X and the probability of Y, where neither can be quantified or even defined.
Whether there is a "mind" behind natural forces is one of those unknowable questions, for which Occam's Razor seems the only tool to guide us: do we need to assume an entity behind natural forces in order to explain them? No. OR tells us, then, not to assume them.
OR isn't a legal concept, I don't believe, but then, this isn't a legal question.
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2012, 08:15:20 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 03, 2012, 07:52:34 AM
Oh look. Now Martinus has joined Viking. Now his Axis of Hate will be invincible, right?
We are renaming it Axis of Dreadnaught, join us and we can rule the galaxy together as eh.. atheist and landlocked dreadnaught pilot.
I'm already part of the Axis of Dreadn
ought with the ghost of Jackie Fisher and Zombie Alfred Thayer Mahan.
Besides, once Martinus joined, it became uncool. He'll have Apple products and high-heeled shoes all over the clubhouse. And I'm no less an atheist than you. I'm just intolerant in different ways.
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2012, 09:04:58 PM
Well yes. I find it hard to understand how you can be anything other than a fundamentalist literalist if you actually belive in god and accept what the various religions say about what god wants from you. How can you ignore the creator of the universe when he calls?
Because religions don't necassarily present themselves in the way you seem to think.
As an example, in Christianity, Jesus' typical mode of communication is through parable or similar metaphorical presentation. That should be a big clue that a strictly literal approach is neither intended or appropriate.
QuoteWell, given that the content of the OP is all about how most normal people decide for themselves what is moral and pick and choose from whatever book is the local holy book for the justification they need, ignoring what contradicts their natural morality I venture to suggest that I do. They choose to accept the dogmas they are willing to accept. They get neither their faith, religion or their morals from their religious texts, they merely twist and manipulate their existing texts to fit into the faith, religion and morality they already hold.
They are making this stuff up for themselves while they insist that others take the book as truth. This is what makes them lying amoral scumbags. They claim this comes from god, telling this to children, while ignoring what doesn't suit them. What I do not understand is how you can actually believe there is a god while striking out the bits of his message to you that doesn't suite you?
You are again presuming there is a "natural morality" that is universal and innate, which is a very dubious proposition. To the extent you are relying on some evolutionary mechanism to explain morality, the claim borders on the non-falsiable: there is no "fossil record" of mental constructs. It also contradicts what I would posit as a common sense view of how ethical behavior manifests - namely, most people adopt various simple heuristics and maxims as they are exposed to them. That is, most people "pick and choose" from an array of potential ethical rules and heuristics, typically influenced by parents, peer groups, teachers or mentors. In this respect, ethical concept and moral rule formation pretty much involves the same process regardless of religious sect, and regardless of whether one is theist or atheist. The only difference is that the theist is more likely to have their "picks" influnced by clergy, whereas the atheist is more likely to adopt maxims or principles that, while identical in substance to certain religious maxims and principles, have the word "God" taken out.
The rest of this post is attaking strawmen. Who are these unknown adversaries that insist that others adopt a strict literalist interpretation of a text and yet don't do so themselves?
QuoteMy case is that it is genetic and memetic. Our moral sentiments are composed of instinctive, evolved and learned morality. We have identified instinctive behaviours to like all children, men actually have an instinctive behaviour to belive any baby he thinks might be his looks like him. Playing musical chairs with newborns in hospitals can be done legally and ethically and has been done. Our attachment to puppies and kittens is much the same since they share the infantile attributes we often ascribe to babies and feel protective of. This is merely one example of many.
What I possibly did not make clear (I thought it was obvious) is that I am talking about a descriptive morality and ethics, not a normative one (at this point your use of the word "rationalistic" becomes uncomfortable to me given is meaning opposed to "empiricistic" rather than the often confusing use meaning using reason).
It's not descriptive -- a descriptive account would involve a taxonomy of ethical phenomena and an analysis of principles that might underlie them - you are advancing something different, which is theory of origins. And it is a very dubious theory because the axiomatic claims are contestable (e.g. the claim of instinctive sympathy towards children and small animals as a foundational basis of ethics immediately encounters the uncomfortable reality of highly variant attitudes towards father-child relationships and treatment of small animals across scoeities) and the difficulties of extrapolating the richness and depth of systems of moral reasoning from such simple biological axioms in a manner that doesn't reduce to question begging.
Quotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics
This is a quick overview, but the thing is that this is a developed field, Huxley was working on this in the 19th century. The problem is testing the hypothesis since no conceivable experiment that is both ethical, legal and likely to be completed within the lifetime of anybody alive is possible. This field only becomes controversial when religion is allowed to opine on it.
The problem is that the hypothesis is not testable at all becuase any empirical social phenomemon can be "explained" by being hammered into an evolutionary explanation. Thus evolution can be used to explain selfishness but also altruism. ANY social constuct or behavior can be argued to have an evolutionary advantage in some context, because "fitness" or selectivity for evolutionary purposes is not invariant, but highly context-based. Which is a particular problem where the relevant context - human social interaction - is subject to extreme variability and change, and variability that is endogenous in terms of interaction of the human faculty of reason and speculation with that contextual change.
This is why Hume's point about divorcing the empirical from normative ethical reasoning is well taken.
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2012, 10:33:27 AM
I don't see how there could be a trial, let alone a verdict, on the issue of "the existence of god on the balance of probabilities."
The trial would have to balance the probability of X and the probability of Y, where neither can be quantified or even defined.
Whether there is a "mind" behind natural forces is one of those unknowable questions, for which Occam's Razor seems the only tool to guide us: do we need to assume an entity behind natural forces in order to explain them? No. OR tells us, then, not to assume them.
OR isn't a legal concept, I don't believe, but then, this isn't a legal question.
I'm not making the claim that this trial will make any sense, BB is. On one side you are operating with a claim which has an unknown prior probability (the existence of god) and on the other side you have an attempt to put a probability of proving a negative (=0 by definition).
I suspect his two tests are if his assertions actually support the hypothesis that god exists and the probability that his assertions are true or reasonable.
I don't think BB is actually going to make his case or attempt to do so, he will either abandon this thread or call me a bigot for asking him to do what he said he could do.
mountie bigit
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2012, 10:47:15 AM
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2012, 10:33:27 AM
I don't see how there could be a trial, let alone a verdict, on the issue of "the existence of god on the balance of probabilities."
The trial would have to balance the probability of X and the probability of Y, where neither can be quantified or even defined.
Whether there is a "mind" behind natural forces is one of those unknowable questions, for which Occam's Razor seems the only tool to guide us: do we need to assume an entity behind natural forces in order to explain them? No. OR tells us, then, not to assume them.
OR isn't a legal concept, I don't believe, but then, this isn't a legal question.
I'm not making the claim that this trial will make any sense, BB is. On one side you are operating with a claim which has an unknown prior probability (the existence of god) and on the other side you have an attempt to put a probability of proving a negative (=0 by definition).
I suspect his two tests are if his assertions actually support the hypothesis that god exists and the probability that his assertions are true or reasonable.
I don't think BB is actually going to make his case or attempt to do so, he will either abandon this thread or call me a bigot for asking him to do what he said he could do.
I'm not sure that he could answer, because if I understand his post (and I admit that I may be misunderstanding it), he's not claiming to balance the evidence in quite the same way he'd balance evidence in a trial--he's making an analogy (arguably a poor one) rather than a direct comparison. It's seems impossible to reach a conclusion about what one believes as to the existance or non-existance of God through strict logic. It would be like deciding what to have for dinner this evening through the use of strict logic. If you choose to have roast beef instead of steak, how can anyone use logic to show that you were wrong?
Fairly easy to determine what you actually ended up having for dinner.
Quote from: dps on August 03, 2012, 10:55:15 AM
It would be like deciding what to have for dinner this evening through the use of strict logic. If you choose to have roast beef instead of steak, how can anyone use logic to show that you were wrong?
Actually I think one could from a nutrition angle look at what was good or bad depending on your circumstances and preparation of the dish.
Quote from: The Brain on August 03, 2012, 11:01:42 AM
Fairly easy to determine what you actually ended up having for dinner.
I dont know, some of that organic labelling has to be taken on faith it seems...
Quote from: dps on August 03, 2012, 10:55:15 AM
I'm not sure that he could answer, because if I understand his post (and I admit that I may be misunderstanding it), he's not claiming to balance the evidence in quite the same way he'd balance evidence in a trial--he's making an analogy (arguably a poor one) rather than a direct comparison. It's seems impossible to reach a conclusion about what one believes as to the existance or non-existance of God through strict logic. It would be like deciding what to have for dinner this evening through the use of strict logic. If you choose to have roast beef instead of steak, how can anyone use logic to show that you were wrong?
I'm gonna disagree. BB seemed to me to be making the direct comparison of the chances of proving the existence of his god based on "the balance of probabilities" to the chances of doing so in any case being decided on balance of probabilities.
Quote[BB]But balance of probabilities? Well like I said you have lots of witnesses who say they've seen Him and talked to Him. You have the historical records showing His words (the Bible). And you'll find plenty of Experts who say looking at the world and its beauty means there is a God.
So yes - I think His existence could be proven on a balance of probabilities.
I think he is wrong, of course, because he is ignoring all of the probabilities that work against his case, but I think he was making the bolded claim.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 10:35:32 AM
Because religions don't necassarily present themselves in the way you seem to think.
As an example, in Christianity, Jesus' typical mode of communication is through parable or similar metaphorical presentation. That should be a big clue that a strictly literal approach is neither intended or appropriate.
I don't think this is a problem for the literalist. There are sufficiently large proportions of the bible that are not parables especially the epistles, revalation and the prophecies and explicit statements of jesus. Furthermore I don't think the literalist has any problem with parables simply on the grounds that the literalist considers the parables to literally be parables. Reality clashes least with the parables simply because they are stories that even the literalist doesn't claim to be literally true.
It's just that the parables comprised a list of 30 or 40 one paragraph stories in a much longer book. The sermon on the mount, the eye of the needle and the bit about forsaking your family selling all you own and following his as well as the "there is one among you here who will see the end of days" bit.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 10:35:32 AM
You are again presuming there is a "natural morality" that is universal and innate, which is a very dubious proposition. To the extent you are relying on some evolutionary mechanism to explain morality, the claim borders on the non-falsiable: there is no "fossil record" of mental constructs. It also contradicts what I would posit as a common sense view of how ethical behavior manifests - namely, most people adopt various simple heuristics and maxims as they are exposed to them. That is, most people "pick and choose" from an array of potential ethical rules and heuristics, typically influenced by parents, peer groups, teachers or mentors. In this respect, ethical concept and moral rule formation pretty much involves the same process regardless of religious sect, and regardless of whether one is theist or atheist. The only difference is that the theist is more likely to have their "picks" influnced by clergy, whereas the atheist is more likely to adopt maxims or principles that, while identical in substance to certain religious maxims and principles, have the word "God" taken out.
Well yes, I agree. There is no fossil record of ideas except as writing. Given that 95% of homo sapien history happened before the invention of writing we don't have the bones of the development from morals as we see in chimps and other great apes to stone age morality and (within human history) the development from paleolithic through mesolithic to neolithic ideas. We do however have data indicating mental development both in development of tools, art and burial rituals.
We do know that mental constructs exist and we can find differing and rudimentary moral codes in animals. Just like we can find rudimentary forms of eyes in the animal kingdom showing each supposed step in the development of the eye without actually having eye fossils to work with. Lions don't do cannibalism, monkeys, prairie dogs and meerkats risk their own lives to warn pack members of predator attacks (they even have rudimentary language to do this), vampire bats share food and remember who shared and who didn't, chimpanzees will start fights if they feel unfairly treated (give one chimpanzee one apple and another chimpanzee two apples and you have started a fight), gorillas will spare submitting males from beatings and death and again to chimpanzees they will show compassion and comfort injured, shamed or insulted members of their group. These behaviors are universal within these species, you find them in all groups of that species.
So, we don't have moral fossils but we have all the rudimentary forms of morality one would expect among species which don't require the full set we have. The more complex an animals social structure is the more developed it's morals. If you don't think ants have morals; ants willfully give their own lives for other ants (so do bees). The insect answer suggests that morals do not take up much brainpower; even that they might be simplistic heuristics at their core which our brains elaborate on.
You agree with 2/3 of my thesis her. You agree that morals include learned heuristics and maxims and you agree that our common sense is vital in picking which of these heuristics and maxims we follow. I'm saying that our morals comprise of both learned morals and instinctive morals. Investigations into the development of childrens brains has demonstrated that certain morals don't need to be taught, they are instinctive. Parents will note how toddlers will measure milk glasses to the millimeter to make sure that the milk is fairly divided. We don't need to teach children that lying, stealing and murder are wrong. Lie detectors work on identifying the mental stress response we have when lying. This is not a perfect guarantee of behavior, parents and society do need to identify and correct when deviation happens. The person breaching these fundamental morals knows he is breaching without ever really having been taught.
If you can find some other mechanism for the appearance of a near universal set of moral beliefs among all human societies I am willing to listen to it. We have instincts for moral behavior, these instincts are often re-enforced by culture and religion, I do not doubt that; but we have these instincts. Cannibalism, incest, murder, mendacity, theft etc. are near universally immoral and when they are practiced they are practiced as part of religious ritual (a victory of nurture over nature).
Our brain produces our instincts and our brain is a result of evolution. I think it is reasonable for it to follow from that that our instincts are a result of evolution, however vicariously. If you accept this and you accept the role of instinct in morality then I can't see how you can not accept genetically evolved morality as a constiuent material plausible explanation for the appearance of universal morality.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 10:35:32 AM
The rest of this post is attaking strawmen. Who are these unknown adversaries that insist that others adopt a strict literalist interpretation of a text and yet don't do so themselves?
I claim that they insist the book is true while they don't live the consequences of that claim. I accept that it is completely possible for a person to genuinely believe the book is true and genuinely believe that he doesn't need to follow all the bits and genuinely argue that the book is true. Humans are creatures of contradictions. They don't think that they themselves need to follow all the bits of the book themselves since they are wise enough to understand which bits to follow and which bits not to follow, they just don't assume that other people are smart enough to do the same.
Almost all christians decline to give no thought for the morrow, to abandon their families and to sell all their worldly goods and give them to the poor. They manage to get the idea that the bible teaches the opposite; that is to be a good family member. Any man who got an education and then a job, got married had kids got a mortgage and goes to church on sundays is ignoring Jesus instruction on how to be one of his followers. That is what I mean.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 10:35:32 AM
It's not descriptive -- a descriptive account would involve a taxonomy of ethical phenomena and an analysis of principles that might underlie them - you are advancing something different, which is theory of origins. And it is a very dubious theory because the axiomatic claims are contestable (e.g. the claim of instinctive sympathy towards children and small animals as a foundational basis of ethics immediately encounters the uncomfortable reality of highly variant attitudes towards father-child relationships and treatment of small animals across scoeities) and the difficulties of extrapolating the richness and depth of systems of moral reasoning from such simple biological axioms in a manner that doesn't reduce to question begging.
I'm not suggesting that we can get any "ought" from any "is" here. I'm observing that human societies have agreed on a certain set of moral basics and because we all share these basics we acquired them from a common source and that the only common source we share with australian aboriginies is the mesolithic genetic pool.
I'm not arguing that because all societies have up to now agreed that murder is bad that it follows that we much hold this view in the future. I am not arguing for a foundation at all. I am observing that we have a common agreement of what moral behavior is and the reason we agree is that these morals evolved in the same or similar manner. Nothing that Paleolithic man though was moral should be or is binding on us. Just as in genetic evolution there are no good genes and bad genes, there are successful genes and only nature decides which are good, humanity does not. That is how we got the idiotic idea of eugenics; som idiots who happened to be related to Darwin got it into their heads that the central idea of evolution (natural selection) was amoral and should be fought against. I'm not arguing for (lets see if we can make this a neologism) eumemics.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 10:35:32 AM
The problem is that the hypothesis is not testable at all becuase any empirical social phenomemon can be "explained" by being hammered into an evolutionary explanation. Thus evolution can be used to explain selfishness but also altruism. ANY social constuct or behavior can be argued to have an evolutionary advantage in some context, because "fitness" or selectivity for evolutionary purposes is not invariant, but highly context-based. Which is a particular problem where the relevant context - human social interaction - is subject to extreme variability and change, and variability that is endogenous in terms of interaction of the human faculty of reason and speculation with that contextual change.
This is why Hume's point about divorcing the empirical from normative ethical reasoning is well taken.
I agree here. To quote Orgel's rule "evolution is smarter than you". I suspect that as time passes we might actually evolve different universal morals for farming villages and cities in addition to the hunter gatherer morals we have now. The time we have spend as farmers and burghers is so minutely short on the evolutionary scale the no real effect has been seen and the rate of cultural evolution is so many orders of magnitude faster than genetic evolution that it is quite possible that our moral memes will render genetic change on this issue insignificant.
The important points I am making are
1 - genetic instinctive morality is only one factor
2 - normative morals do not follow from moral evolution through group selection just as eugenics does not follow from genetic evolution through natural selection.
Edit: fixed quote threading and formatting
Edit2: Brain, DG would you mind deleting those posts
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2012, 11:43:31 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 10:35:32 AM
Because religions don't necassarily present themselves in the way you seem to think.
As an example, in Christianity, Jesus' typical mode of communication is through parable or similar metaphorical presentation. That should be a big clue that a strictly literal approach is neither intended or appropriate.
Quote
I don't think this is a problem for the literalist. There are sufficiently large proportions of the bible that are not parables especially the epistles, revalation and the prophecies and explicit statements of jesus. Furthermore I don't think the literalist has any problem with parables simply on the grounds that the literalist considers the parables to literally be parables. Reality clashes least with the parables simply because they are stories that even the literalist doesn't claim to be literally true.
It's just that the parables comprised a list of 30 or 40 one paragraph stories in a much longer book. The sermon on the mount, the eye of the needle and the bit about forsaking your family selling all you own and following his as well as the "there is one among you here who will see the end of days" bit.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 10:35:32 AM
You are again presuming there is a "natural morality" that is universal and innate, which is a very dubious proposition. To the extent you are relying on some evolutionary mechanism to explain morality, the claim borders on the non-falsiable: there is no "fossil record" of mental constructs. It also contradicts what I would posit as a common sense view of how ethical behavior manifests - namely, most people adopt various simple heuristics and maxims as they are exposed to them. That is, most people "pick and choose" from an array of potential ethical rules and heuristics, typically influenced by parents, peer groups, teachers or mentors. In this respect, ethical concept and moral rule formation pretty much involves the same process regardless of religious sect, and regardless of whether one is theist or atheist. The only difference is that the theist is more likely to have their "picks" influnced by clergy, whereas the atheist is more likely to adopt maxims or principles that, while identical in substance to certain religious maxims and principles, have the word "God" taken out.
Quote
Well yes, I agree. There is no fossil record of ideas except as writing. Given that 95% of homo sapien history happened before the invention of writing we don't have the bones of the development from morals as we see in chimps and other great apes to stone age morality and (within human history) the development from paleolithic through mesolithic to neolithic ideas. We do however have data indicating mental development both in development of tools, art and burial rituals.
We do know that mental constructs exist and we can find differing and rudimentary moral codes in animals. Just like we can find rudimentary forms of eyes in the animal kingdom showing each supposed step in the development of the eye without actually having eye fossils to work with. Lions don't do cannibalism, monkeys, prairie dogs and meerkats risk their own lives to warn pack members of predator attacks (they even have rudimentary language to do this), vampire bats share food and remember who shared and who didn't, chimpanzees will start fights if they feel unfairly treated (give one chimpanzee one apple and another chimpanzee two apples and you have started a fight), gorillas will spare submitting males from beatings and death and again to chimpanzees they will show compassion and comfort injured, shamed or insulted members of their group. These behaviors are universal within these species, you find them in all groups of that species.
So, we don't have moral fossils but we have all the rudimentary forms of morality one would expect among species which don't require the full set we have. The more complex an animals social structure is the more developed it's morals. If you don't think ants have morals; ants willfully give their own lives for other ants (so do bees). The insect answer suggests that morals do not take up much brainpower; even that they might be simplistic heuristics at their core which our brains elaborate on.
You agree with 2/3 of my thesis her. You agree that morals include learned heuristics and maxims and you agree that our common sense is vital in picking which of these heuristics and maxims we follow. I'm saying that our morals comprise of both learned morals and instinctive morals. Investigations into the development of childrens brains has demonstrated that certain morals don't need to be taught, they are instinctive. Parents will note how toddlers will measure milk glasses to the millimeter to make sure that the milk is fairly divided. We don't need to teach children that lying, stealing and murder are wrong. Lie detectors work on identifying the mental stress response we have when lying. This is not a perfect guarantee of behavior, parents and society do need to identify and correct when deviation happens. The person breaching these fundamental morals knows he is breaching without ever really having been taught.
If you can find some other mechanism for the appearance of a near universal set of moral beliefs among all human societies I am willing to listen to it. We have instincts for moral behavior, these instincts are often re-enforced by culture and religion, I do not doubt that; but we have these instincts. Cannibalism, incest, murder, mendacity, theft etc. are near universally immoral and when they are practiced they are practiced as part of religious ritual (a victory of nurture over nature).
Our brain produces our instincts and our brain is a result of evolution. I think it is reasonable for it to follow from that that our instincts are a result of evolution, however vicariously. If you accept this and you accept the role of instinct in morality then I can't see how you can not accept genetically evolved morality as a constiuent material plausible explanation for the appearance of universal morality.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 10:35:32 AM
The rest of this post is attaking strawmen. Who are these unknown adversaries that insist that others adopt a strict literalist interpretation of a text and yet don't do so themselves?
Quote
I claim that they insist the book is true while they don't live the consequences of that claim. I accept that it is completely possible for a person to genuinely believe the book is true and genuinely believe that he doesn't need to follow all the bits and genuinely argue that the book is true. Humans are creatures of contradictions. They don't think that they themselves need to follow all the bits of the book themselves since they are wise enough to understand which bits to follow and which bits not to follow, they just don't assume that other people are smart enough to do the same.
Almost all christians decline to give no thought for the morrow, to abandon their families and to sell all their worldly goods and give them to the poor. They manage to get the idea that the bible teaches the opposite; that is to be a good family member. Any man who got an education and then a job, got married had kids got a mortgage and goes to church on sundays is ignoring Jesus instruction on how to be one of his followers. That is what I mean.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 10:35:32 AM
It's not descriptive -- a descriptive account would involve a taxonomy of ethical phenomena and an analysis of principles that might underlie them - you are advancing something different, which is theory of origins. And it is a very dubious theory because the axiomatic claims are contestable (e.g. the claim of instinctive sympathy towards children and small animals as a foundational basis of ethics immediately encounters the uncomfortable reality of highly variant attitudes towards father-child relationships and treatment of small animals across scoeities) and the difficulties of extrapolating the richness and depth of systems of moral reasoning from such simple biological axioms in a manner that doesn't reduce to question begging.
Quote
I'm not suggesting that we can get any "ought" from any "is" here. I'm observing that human societies have agreed on a certain set of moral basics and because we all share these basics we acquired them from a common source and that the only common source we share with australian aboriginies is the mesolithic genetic pool.
I'm not arguing that because all societies have up to now agreed that murder is bad that it follows that we much hold this view in the future. I am not arguing for a foundation at all. I am observing that we have a common agreement of what moral behavior is and the reason we agree is that these morals evolved in the same or similar manner. Nothing that Paleolithic man though was moral should be or is binding on us. Just as in genetic evolution there are no good genes and bad genes, there are successful genes and only nature decides which are good, humanity does not. That is how we got the idiotic idea of eugenics; som idiots who happened to be related to Darwin got it into their heads that the central idea of evolution (natural selection) was amoral and should be fought against. I'm not arguing for (lets see if we can make this a neologism) eumemics.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 10:35:32 AM
The problem is that the hypothesis is not testable at all becuase any empirical social phenomemon can be "explained" by being hammered into an evolutionary explanation. Thus evolution can be used to explain selfishness but also altruism. ANY social constuct or behavior can be argued to have an evolutionary advantage in some context, because "fitness" or selectivity for evolutionary purposes is not invariant, but highly context-based. Which is a particular problem where the relevant context - human social interaction - is subject to extreme variability and change, and variability that is endogenous in terms of interaction of the human faculty of reason and speculation with that contextual change.
This is why Hume's point about divorcing the empirical from normative ethical reasoning is well taken.
I agree here. To quote Orgel's rule "evolution is smarter than you". I suspect that as time passes we might actually evolve different universal morals for farming villages and cities in addition to the hunter gatherer morals we have now. The time we have spend as farmers and burghers is so minutely short on the evolutionary scale the no real effect has been seen and the rate of cultural evolution is so many orders of magnitude faster than genetic evolution that it is quite possible that our moral memes will render genetic change on this issue insignificant.
The important points I am making are
1 - genetic instinctive morality is only one factor
2 - normative morals do not follow from moral evolution through group selection just as eugenics does not follow from genetic evolution through natural selection.
Quote from: The Brain on August 03, 2012, 11:44:56 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2012, 11:43:31 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 10:35:32 AM
Because religions don't necassarily present themselves in the way you seem to think.
As an example, in Christianity, Jesus' typical mode of communication is through parable or similar metaphorical presentation. That should be a big clue that a strictly literal approach is neither intended or appropriate.
Quote
I don't think this is a problem for the literalist. There are sufficiently large proportions of the bible that are not parables especially the epistles, revalation and the prophecies and explicit statements of jesus. Furthermore I don't think the literalist has any problem with parables simply on the grounds that the literalist considers the parables to literally be parables. Reality clashes least with the parables simply because they are stories that even the literalist doesn't claim to be literally true.
It's just that the parables comprised a list of 30 or 40 one paragraph stories in a much longer book. The sermon on the mount, the eye of the needle and the bit about forsaking your family selling all you own and following his as well as the "there is one among you here who will see the end of days" bit.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 10:35:32 AM
You are again presuming there is a "natural morality" that is universal and innate, which is a very dubious proposition. To the extent you are relying on some evolutionary mechanism to explain morality, the claim borders on the non-falsiable: there is no "fossil record" of mental constructs. It also contradicts what I would posit as a common sense view of how ethical behavior manifests - namely, most people adopt various simple heuristics and maxims as they are exposed to them. That is, most people "pick and choose" from an array of potential ethical rules and heuristics, typically influenced by parents, peer groups, teachers or mentors. In this respect, ethical concept and moral rule formation pretty much involves the same process regardless of religious sect, and regardless of whether one is theist or atheist. The only difference is that the theist is more likely to have their "picks" influnced by clergy, whereas the atheist is more likely to adopt maxims or principles that, while identical in substance to certain religious maxims and principles, have the word "God" taken out.
Quote
Well yes, I agree. There is no fossil record of ideas except as writing. Given that 95% of homo sapien history happened before the invention of writing we don't have the bones of the development from morals as we see in chimps and other great apes to stone age morality and (within human history) the development from paleolithic through mesolithic to neolithic ideas. We do however have data indicating mental development both in development of tools, art and burial rituals.
We do know that mental constructs exist and we can find differing and rudimentary moral codes in animals. Just like we can find rudimentary forms of eyes in the animal kingdom showing each supposed step in the development of the eye without actually having eye fossils to work with. Lions don't do cannibalism, monkeys, prairie dogs and meerkats risk their own lives to warn pack members of predator attacks (they even have rudimentary language to do this), vampire bats share food and remember who shared and who didn't, chimpanzees will start fights if they feel unfairly treated (give one chimpanzee one apple and another chimpanzee two apples and you have started a fight), gorillas will spare submitting males from beatings and death and again to chimpanzees they will show compassion and comfort injured, shamed or insulted members of their group. These behaviors are universal within these species, you find them in all groups of that species.
So, we don't have moral fossils but we have all the rudimentary forms of morality one would expect among species which don't require the full set we have. The more complex an animals social structure is the more developed it's morals. If you don't think ants have morals; ants willfully give their own lives for other ants (so do bees). The insect answer suggests that morals do not take up much brainpower; even that they might be simplistic heuristics at their core which our brains elaborate on.
You agree with 2/3 of my thesis her. You agree that morals include learned heuristics and maxims and you agree that our common sense is vital in picking which of these heuristics and maxims we follow. I'm saying that our morals comprise of both learned morals and instinctive morals. Investigations into the development of childrens brains has demonstrated that certain morals don't need to be taught, they are instinctive. Parents will note how toddlers will measure milk glasses to the millimeter to make sure that the milk is fairly divided. We don't need to teach children that lying, stealing and murder are wrong. Lie detectors work on identifying the mental stress response we have when lying. This is not a perfect guarantee of behavior, parents and society do need to identify and correct when deviation happens. The person breaching these fundamental morals knows he is breaching without ever really having been taught.
If you can find some other mechanism for the appearance of a near universal set of moral beliefs among all human societies I am willing to listen to it. We have instincts for moral behavior, these instincts are often re-enforced by culture and religion, I do not doubt that; but we have these instincts. Cannibalism, incest, murder, mendacity, theft etc. are near universally immoral and when they are practiced they are practiced as part of religious ritual (a victory of nurture over nature).
Our brain produces our instincts and our brain is a result of evolution. I think it is reasonable for it to follow from that that our instincts are a result of evolution, however vicariously. If you accept this and you accept the role of instinct in morality then I can't see how you can not accept genetically evolved morality as a constiuent material plausible explanation for the appearance of universal morality.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 10:35:32 AM
The rest of this post is attaking strawmen. Who are these unknown adversaries that insist that others adopt a strict literalist interpretation of a text and yet don't do so themselves?
Quote
I claim that they insist the book is true while they don't live the consequences of that claim. I accept that it is completely possible for a person to genuinely believe the book is true and genuinely believe that he doesn't need to follow all the bits and genuinely argue that the book is true. Humans are creatures of contradictions. They don't think that they themselves need to follow all the bits of the book themselves since they are wise enough to understand which bits to follow and which bits not to follow, they just don't assume that other people are smart enough to do the same.
Almost all christians decline to give no thought for the morrow, to abandon their families and to sell all their worldly goods and give them to the poor. They manage to get the idea that the bible teaches the opposite; that is to be a good family member. Any man who got an education and then a job, got married had kids got a mortgage and goes to church on sundays is ignoring Jesus instruction on how to be one of his followers. That is what I mean.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 10:35:32 AM
It's not descriptive -- a descriptive account would involve a taxonomy of ethical phenomena and an analysis of principles that might underlie them - you are advancing something different, which is theory of origins. And it is a very dubious theory because the axiomatic claims are contestable (e.g. the claim of instinctive sympathy towards children and small animals as a foundational basis of ethics immediately encounters the uncomfortable reality of highly variant attitudes towards father-child relationships and treatment of small animals across scoeities) and the difficulties of extrapolating the richness and depth of systems of moral reasoning from such simple biological axioms in a manner that doesn't reduce to question begging.
Quote
I'm not suggesting that we can get any "ought" from any "is" here. I'm observing that human societies have agreed on a certain set of moral basics and because we all share these basics we acquired them from a common source and that the only common source we share with australian aboriginies is the mesolithic genetic pool.
I'm not arguing that because all societies have up to now agreed that murder is bad that it follows that we much hold this view in the future. I am not arguing for a foundation at all. I am observing that we have a common agreement of what moral behavior is and the reason we agree is that these morals evolved in the same or similar manner. Nothing that Paleolithic man though was moral should be or is binding on us. Just as in genetic evolution there are no good genes and bad genes, there are successful genes and only nature decides which are good, humanity does not. That is how we got the idiotic idea of eugenics; som idiots who happened to be related to Darwin got it into their heads that the central idea of evolution (natural selection) was amoral and should be fought against. I'm not arguing for (lets see if we can make this a neologism) eumemics.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 10:35:32 AM
The problem is that the hypothesis is not testable at all becuase any empirical social phenomemon can be "explained" by being hammered into an evolutionary explanation. Thus evolution can be used to explain selfishness but also altruism. ANY social constuct or behavior can be argued to have an evolutionary advantage in some context, because "fitness" or selectivity for evolutionary purposes is not invariant, but highly context-based. Which is a particular problem where the relevant context - human social interaction - is subject to extreme variability and change, and variability that is endogenous in terms of interaction of the human faculty of reason and speculation with that contextual change.
This is why Hume's point about divorcing the empirical from normative ethical reasoning is well taken.
I agree here. To quote Orgel's rule "evolution is smarter than you". I suspect that as time passes we might actually evolve different universal morals for farming villages and cities in addition to the hunter gatherer morals we have now. The time we have spend as farmers and burghers is so minutely short on the evolutionary scale the no real effect has been seen and the rate of cultural evolution is so many orders of magnitude faster than genetic evolution that it is quite possible that our moral memes will render genetic change on this issue insignificant.
The important points I am making are
1 - genetic instinctive morality is only one factor
2 - normative morals do not follow from moral evolution through group selection just as eugenics does not follow from genetic evolution through natural selection.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-jFbBq34FHqs%2FT_n_R5LQSuI%2FAAAAAAAAGeg%2FxbJyrYli8nc%2Fs320%2F36.JPG&hash=85c48b07dcf7e5ae2b47244a55ad110321fb1f70)
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2012, 11:43:31 AM
I'm not suggesting that we can get any "ought" from any "is" here . . .. I am not arguing for a foundation at all. I am observing that we have a common agreement of what moral behavior is and the reason we agree is that these morals evolved in the same or similar manner. Nothing that Paleolithic man though was moral should be or is binding on us. Just as in genetic evolution there are no good genes and bad genes, there are successful genes and only nature decides which are good, humanity does not. . . .
The important points I am making are
. . .
2 - normative morals do not follow from moral evolution through group selection just as eugenics does not follow from genetic evolution through natural selection.
If your argument held, then your would have just proven the case of the theists
As I understand it, you are advancing a empirical theory of morality without any normative content at all, thus avoiding Hume's fallacy. But avoiding the fallacy doesn't make the question go away. You've simply sidestepped the question at the heart of all moral reasoning - what is the good. I.e. assuming that evolutionary forces operate over time to produce a particular set of mental structures, there is no way for us to know whether those mental structures are actually right or good in any sense other than that they are the ones we happene to have.
Under such an account, the faculty of human reasoning cannot contribute to elucidating moral problems other than to the extent of postulating constructs that are sorted and selected according to the evolutionary process. That is, normative moral judgments cannot come from the human minds, nor do they arise from nature. Thus, it follows that they can only come from some supernatural source.
You've proven the case you set out to respond to.
Or at least you would have if the underlying argument held.
QuoteOur brain produces our instincts and our brain is a result of evolution. I think it is reasonable for it to follow from that that our instincts are a result of evolution, however vicariously. If you accept this and you accept the role of instinct in morality then . . .
No, I don't think this does follow.
First, while it is true that our physical brain arose out of the biological, evolutionary process, it does not follows that every activity of the brain is governed by that process. The brain may indeed have evolved the way it did beacuse it certain ancient environments it conferred survivability advantages that outweighed its disadvantages, but the organ that resulted was capable of functions beyond those particular contingent evolutionary advantages. (just as by way of analogy certain techologies may have uses or functions well beyond the specific problems they were originally used to solve). There may have been an evolutionary advantage to having brains capable of relatively sophisticated social interaction and behavioral dispositions favoring certain kinds of cooperation. But the ability or inclination to engage in moral philsophy side effect of that biological process, and the moral reasoning that the mind engages in as part of that activity is just that -- reasoning -- and not just random mental projections that are then sorted out by blind processes of evolutionary selection.
Second, and indepedently, I reject the role of instinct in morality. Instinct, if defined as innate and non-volitional behavior, has no moral content or significance at all.
Heh, to an extent there is a tension between what one would imagine are the evolutionarily-derived instincts and what most people would consider moral - hence, the "selfish gene".
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2012, 11:11:06 AM
Quote from: dps on August 03, 2012, 10:55:15 AM
I'm not sure that he could answer, because if I understand his post (and I admit that I may be misunderstanding it), he's not claiming to balance the evidence in quite the same way he'd balance evidence in a trial--he's making an analogy (arguably a poor one) rather than a direct comparison. It's seems impossible to reach a conclusion about what one believes as to the existance or non-existance of God through strict logic. It would be like deciding what to have for dinner this evening through the use of strict logic. If you choose to have roast beef instead of steak, how can anyone use logic to show that you were wrong?
I'm gonna disagree. BB seemed to me to be making the direct comparison of the chances of proving the existence of his god based on "the balance of probabilities" to the chances of doing so in any case being decided on balance of probabilities.
Quote[BB]But balance of probabilities? Well like I said you have lots of witnesses who say they've seen Him and talked to Him. You have the historical records showing His words (the Bible). And you'll find plenty of Experts who say looking at the world and its beauty means there is a God.
So yes - I think His existence could be proven on a balance of probabilities.
I think he is wrong, of course, because he is ignoring all of the probabilities that work against his case, but I think he was making the bolded claim.
Early on Viking made some comparison I didn't understand about me using the standards I work with in my job to my faith. So I posted the "are you asking me if I can prove God exists in a courtroom?" and then went on with my very brief analysis.
The post was probably more about how a courtroom operates than about religious faith though. A courtroom does not operate on strict logic or on absolute proofs, which is what Viking wants with respect to religion. It is the very rare case when I have a crime captured entirely on video. Instead we deal with hearing witness recall what they saw and experienced, and we deal with documentary evidence and expert analysis.
A courtroom works on a very different basis than science does. We embrace a degree of uncertainty.
I agree that arguign the existence of God isn't really the right forum for a courtroom - mostly given the enormity of the question. But in my own life I've looked at the question, and I believe it is likely that God exists (but that I do have a doubt about it).
Quote from: Malthus on August 03, 2012, 01:09:09 PM
Heh, to an extent there is a tension between what one would imagine are the evolutionarily-derived instincts and what most people would consider moral - hence, the "selfish gene".
Yeah - that's why trying to apply a theory about physical phenomena to social phenomena probably renders it non-falsiable. You can always come up with a variant evolutionary story that explains any apparent outlier social data.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 12:34:34 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2012, 11:43:31 AM
I'm not suggesting that we can get any "ought" from any "is" here . . .. I am not arguing for a foundation at all. I am observing that we have a common agreement of what moral behavior is and the reason we agree is that these morals evolved in the same or similar manner. Nothing that Paleolithic man though was moral should be or is binding on us. Just as in genetic evolution there are no good genes and bad genes, there are successful genes and only nature decides which are good, humanity does not. . . .
The important points I am making are
. . .
2 - normative morals do not follow from moral evolution through group selection just as eugenics does not follow from genetic evolution through natural selection.
If your argument held, then your would have just proven the case of the theists
I don't understand how you get to this conclusion. Could you expand on this?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 12:34:34 PM
As I understand it, you are advancing a empirical theory of morality without any normative content at all, thus avoiding Hume's fallacy. But avoiding the fallacy doesn't make the question go away. You've simply sidestepped the question at the heart of all moral reasoning - what is the good. I.e. assuming that evolutionary forces operate over time to produce a particular set of mental structures, there is no way for us to know whether those mental structures are actually right or good in any sense other than that they are the ones we happene to have.
Under such an account, the faculty of human reasoning cannot contribute to elucidating moral problems other than to the extent of postulating constructs that are sorted and selected according to the evolutionary process. That is, normative moral judgments cannot come from the human minds, nor do they arise from nature. Thus, it follows that they can only come from some supernatural source.
You've proven the case you set out to respond to.
Or at least you would have if the underlying argument held.
the question "what is the good" presupposes the existence of "the good" in the first place. I don't think there is a "the good" and consequently I don't think that there is any way of reasoning your way to what is "the good". This is going back to philosophy 101 here but Socrates, Plato and later Plotinus their idea of forms left them with an infinite regression to form of forms they called the one and catholic church used as it's definition of god.
Hume didn't fall into this fallacy either, he just observed that you don't get normative morality from facts, effectively destroying eugenics over a hundred years before it was invented. I don't have a problem with dealing with the heart of all moral reasoning because I have no reason to conclude that there is such a thing as "the good". I'm not sure if I think this because it follows from a transcendental non-material existence of "the good" that there is some sort of thing that by it's nature would have to be called god or merely that I think that "the good" is merely "stuff I like" (or some similar definition). Perhaps after hearing the ludicrous ontological argument for the existence of god I stopped assuming that things that have words exist.
Every time I return to the dialogues I find myself agreeing more and more with Milo, Protagoras and Gorgias (which is a bit like starting to root for Skeletor after watching too many He-Man cartoons). Virtue (the word Socrates uses for "the good") is just what Milo said it was a word we apply to attributes we approve of and respect. Basically it is what you me and all English speakers agree it is.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 12:34:34 PM
QuoteOur brain produces our instincts and our brain is a result of evolution. I think it is reasonable for it to follow from that that our instincts are a result of evolution, however vicariously. If you accept this and you accept the role of instinct in morality then . . .
No, I don't think this does follow.
First, while it is true that our physical brain arose out of the biological, evolutionary process, it does not follows that every activity of the brain is governed by that process. The brain may indeed have evolved the way it did beacuse it certain ancient environments it conferred survivability advantages that outweighed its disadvantages, but the organ that resulted was capable of functions beyond those particular contingent evolutionary advantages. (just as by way of analogy certain techologies may have uses or functions well beyond the specific problems they were originally used to solve). There may have been an evolutionary advantage to having brains capable of relatively sophisticated social interaction and behavioral dispositions favoring certain kinds of cooperation. But the ability or inclination to engage in moral philsophy side effect of that biological process, and the moral reasoning that the mind engages in as part of that activity is just that -- reasoning -- and not just random mental projections that are then sorted out by blind processes of evolutionary selection.
Second, and indepedently, I reject the role of instinct in morality. Instinct, if defined as innate and non-volitional behavior, has no moral content or significance at all.
I see we are separated by quite alot of presuppositions about the nature of the mind and psyche.
I think it does follow that all activties of the brain are governed by the biological evolutionary process. The brain is immensely expensive and I suggest that all it's functions are either vital or discarded. The brain came into being as part of additional uses arising through mutations. Evolution does not leave pointless attributes.
Our mind is the activity of our brain, we do not have an external soul which is us outside of our brain. Changes in the brain change our behavior and FMRI studies show that our brain decides before our mind makes the same decision. It is a bit mindblowing but when strapped into a MRI machine and asked to make a simple up down choice the MRI operator can tell what you are going to decide before subjects report deciding. We do not have libertarian free will.
Just to clear some stuff up
Are you a dualist - beliving that humans consist of an independent mind and an independent body (basically having a soul).
Are you a determinist or a beliver in libertarian free will or hold some view inbetween
Are you a materialist - someone who believes that everything that exists is material (no trancindental or spiritual realms)
Are you a deist or theist
Quote from: Malthus on August 03, 2012, 01:09:09 PM
Heh, to an extent there is a tension between what one would imagine are the evolutionarily-derived instincts and what most people would consider moral - hence, the "selfish gene".
From the horses mouth. Selfish Genes can make you altruistic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3L3QdL7HjQ&feature=related
It's only a 2 minute video (a link to the full interview is in the notes). I suspect you don't really know what Dawkins wrote in The Selfish Gene. The Selfish Gene does make the point of evolved morals much better than I could. iirc the audiobook was shorter than the lecture series that AmScip linked to timmy style sans comment.
Quote from: Barrister on August 03, 2012, 01:37:40 PM
Early on Viking made some comparison I didn't understand about me using the standards I work with in my job to my faith. So I posted the "are you asking me if I can prove God exists in a courtroom?" and then went on with my very brief analysis.
I wasn't asking that. I was asking why faith is good enough for satisfying you that god exists while somebody else's faith doesn't satisfy in justifying anything. You brought up the assertion that you could prove god. If your faith is sufficient to prove to you that YAHWE exists why isn't the mooselimbs faith enough to prove that ALLAH does?
Quote from: Barrister on August 03, 2012, 01:37:40 PM
The post was probably more about how a courtroom operates than about religious faith though. A courtroom does not operate on strict logic or on absolute proofs, which is what Viking wants with respect to religion. It is the very rare case when I have a crime captured entirely on video. Instead we deal with hearing witness recall what they saw and experienced, and we deal with documentary evidence and expert analysis.
A courtroom works on a very different basis than science does. We embrace a degree of uncertainty.
I agree that arguign the existence of God isn't really the right forum for a courtroom - mostly given the enormity of the question. But in my own life I've looked at the question, and I believe it is likely that God exists (but that I do have a doubt about it).
I'm sorry but you don't know shit about science if you think that it thinks it has conquered uncertainty. Only faith leads to certainty. I have no faith and I have non idea that I am certain on. Every single idea I have is subject to being changed with new evidence (check out my sig).
You brought up the claim you could prove his existence (apparently in civil court). I didn't.
The four facts I know about your life regard your work (that you speak for the crown), your family (that you are a parent), your location (as close to as many icelanders as possible while not being in scandinavia) and your sports team (not the falcons :yucky:). I used your work where you often have to deal with truth claims and their validity and the test I was trying to set for you was to explain why the standard you apply to accepting god is different from the standard you apply at work. You obfuscated and tried to change the subject with Hijabs and minutia of rape law. You tried to bluff your way out by arguing that you didn't need faith to prove god, when I called it you backed down. You still haven't answered. Why does the truth claim of the existence of god have to meet a different standard to all other truth claims you encounter in life?
Quote from: Malthus on August 03, 2012, 01:09:09 PM
Heh, to an extent there is a tension between what one would imagine are the evolutionarily-derived instincts and what most people would consider moral - hence, the "selfish gene".
Indeed, morality is defined by some as the power to overcome our instincts in favor of "what is right."
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2012, 02:38:50 PM
Why does the truth claim of the existence of god have to meet a different standard to all other truth claims you encounter in life?
It doesn't. I have never said "I believe in Jesus out of pure faith, and I have never not once critically analyzed that belief".
I have looked at all the facts and believe God exists. There is an element of a leap of faith because I don't think those facts are entirely conclusive (as I said I have a doubt but believe anyways), but I think and feel there is sufficient evidence of God.
Quote from: Barrister on August 03, 2012, 01:37:40 PM
Early on Viking made some comparison I didn't understand about me using the standards I work with in my job to my faith. So I posted the "are you asking me if I can prove God exists in a courtroom?" and then went on with my very brief analysis.
The post was probably more about how a courtroom operates than about religious faith though. A courtroom does not operate on strict logic or on absolute proofs, which is what Viking wants with respect to religion. It is the very rare case when I have a crime captured entirely on video. Instead we deal with hearing witness recall what they saw and experienced, and we deal with documentary evidence and expert analysis.
But courtrooms interested in justice operate in a far different fashion than your example, because you only present one side of the case.
QuoteA courtroom works on a very different basis than science does. We embrace a degree of uncertainty.
I agree that arguign the existence of God isn't really the right forum for a courtroom - mostly given the enormity of the question. But in my own life I've looked at the question, and I believe it is likely that God exists (but that I do have a doubt about it).
It certainly doesn't sound to me like you objectively asked yourself "does this particular god exist" and then weighed the pro and con arguments. It sounds to me like you looked for evidence to support the
a priori belief that your particular god exists. Which is fine by me; I don't care what people believe, or why they believe it, so long as they don't expect others to behave according to their own beliefs, and do nothing to harm others as a result of those beliefs. My objection is only to your assertion that the subjective "evidence" you offer constitutes in any way evidence that would demonstrate the existence of your god in any way, let alone that he/she/its existence "could be proven on a balance of probabilities."
Quote from: Barrister on August 03, 2012, 02:52:03 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2012, 02:38:50 PM
Why does the truth claim of the existence of god have to meet a different standard to all other truth claims you encounter in life?
It doesn't. I have never said "I believe in Jesus out of pure faith, and I have never not once critically analyzed that belief".
I have looked at all the facts and believe God exists. There is an element of a leap of faith because I don't think those facts are entirely conclusive (as I said I have a doubt but believe anyways), but I think and feel there is sufficient evidence of God.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.. but when you said this
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 02:52:50 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 02, 2012, 02:21:51 PM
Faith is belief without evidence, I can't respect that and I can't respect anybody who thinks that is a virtue.
I guess I'll have to survive with you not respecting me then. :)
what you really meant was
Quote from: Barrister on August 03, 2012, 02:52:03 PM
It doesn't. I have never said "I believe in Jesus out of pure faith, and I have never not once critically analyzed that belief".
I have looked at all the facts and believe God exists. There is an element of a leap of faith because I don't think those facts are entirely conclusive (as I said I have a doubt but believe anyways), but I think and feel there is sufficient evidence of God.
Is that correctly understood?
Viking, it's up to you whether you "respect me" or not. You have my words before you.
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2012, 02:26:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 03, 2012, 01:09:09 PM
Heh, to an extent there is a tension between what one would imagine are the evolutionarily-derived instincts and what most people would consider moral - hence, the "selfish gene".
From the horses mouth. Selfish Genes can make you altruistic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3L3QdL7HjQ&feature=related
It's only a 2 minute video (a link to the full interview is in the notes). I suspect you don't really know what Dawkins wrote in The Selfish Gene. The Selfish Gene does make the point of evolved morals much better than I could. iirc the audiobook was shorter than the lecture series that AmScip linked to timmy style sans comment.
I suspect you missed my point.
Quote from: Barrister on August 03, 2012, 03:06:25 PM
Viking, it's up to you whether you "respect me" or not. You have my words before you.
Sigh... I did predict you would try to weasel out of your claim that you could prove god on the balance of probabilities. I would like to hear your argument here, I would like to hear what it takes to convince you of the most significant fact in the universe. Is there any special reason for you to not tell me what a reasonable person needs to hear to become a believer. Here I stand, as you pointed out (fatuously) in a previous post listening ready to hear. Best case scenario you save one soul for jesus, worst case you get to feel smug about how the bible predicted this in Luke 6:22.
Quote from: Malthus on August 03, 2012, 03:19:18 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2012, 02:26:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 03, 2012, 01:09:09 PM
Heh, to an extent there is a tension between what one would imagine are the evolutionarily-derived instincts and what most people would consider moral - hence, the "selfish gene".
From the horses mouth. Selfish Genes can make you altruistic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3L3QdL7HjQ&feature=related
It's only a 2 minute video (a link to the full interview is in the notes). I suspect you don't really know what Dawkins wrote in The Selfish Gene. The Selfish Gene does make the point of evolved morals much better than I could. iirc the audiobook was shorter than the lecture series that AmScip linked to timmy style sans comment.
I suspect you missed my point.
I assume you meant that evolutionary-derived instincts were selfish and thus contradicted what most people would consider moral. I just wanted to point out that the author of The Selfish Gene believes that the fact that genes are selfish causes being to be altruistic and that author obviously does not think there is any contradiction between evolutionarily-derived instincts and what most people would consider moral - hence, his chapter on how the selfish gene makes you altruistic.
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2012, 03:20:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 03, 2012, 03:06:25 PM
Viking, it's up to you whether you "respect me" or not. You have my words before you.
Sigh... I did predict you would try to weasel out of your claim that you could prove god on the balance of probabilities. I would like to hear your argument here, I would like to hear what it takes to convince you of the most significant fact in the universe. Is there any special reason for you to not tell me what a reasonable person needs to hear to become a believer. Here I stand, as you pointed out (fatuously) in a previous post listening ready to hear. Best case scenario you save one soul for jesus, worst case you get to feel smug about how the bible predicted this in Luke 6:22.
Viking, we've gone over this material before. The Bible itself, and its message. All those who have experienced peace and happiness through prayer and speaking with God. The number of other really smart people who believe in God. The very fact of existence itself (okay, this is a "God of the gaps" argument - we know about the Big Bang, but can't explain what caused the Big Bang). And just intuition and instinct - I feel there must be a meaning to existence, and some form of existence beyond death.
None of which is going to convince you, so I don't really feel like going into any greater detail.
Viking, word of friendly advice, I'd let this issue drop. You aren't convincing anyone of anything except that you are a jerk. A boring, bigoted jerk with a huge chip on his shoulder.
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2012, 02:19:10 PM
I don't understand how you get to this conclusion. Could you expand on this?
I did already but I can do it again.
By rejecting the possibility of normative moral judgment based in reason, all you are left with is a empirical account for behavior and some speculative hypotheses about how that behavior might have arisen.
Under such an account, the only source for normative moral judgment has to be supernatural since there can be no natural or human source for it.
That is the very argument theists (and non-theistic moral rationalists) make against this kind of account. The difference being that the theists use the argument to contend that normative moral judgments require super-natural agency, moral rationalists contend that human agency through the use of human capacities is sufficient.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 12:34:34 PM
the question "what is the good" presupposes the existence of "the good" in the first place. I don't think there is a "the good" and consequently I don't think that there is any way of reasoning your way to what is "the good". . . . Virtue (the word Socrates uses for "the good") is just what Milo said it was a word we apply to attributes we approve of and respect. Basically it is what you me and all English speakers agree it is.
That's a perfectly legit philosophical position but realize that is what theists mean when they say atheists lack morality. They don't mean atheists are incapable of formulating moral rules and principles and acting by them, they mean that atheists are incapable of ascribing any normative content to them - any reason why those rules and principles should be followed beyond social convention. I happen to think that claim is false, but on your account, it is true.
QuoteI think it does follow that all activties of the brain are governed by the biological evolutionary process. The brain is immensely expensive and I suggest that all it's functions are either vital or discarded. The brain came into being as part of additional uses arising through mutations. Evolution does not leave pointless attributes.
I am no expert in the area, but that statement contradicts everything I have read on the subject - i.e mutations that may spread because they were useful at some point don't just suddenly vanish when they are no longer as useful. Particularly on the time scale of later human evolution which is relatively short. In addition this doesn't take into account the fact that capabilities that spread due to some reproductive advantage may be re-purposed to other tasks that have nothing to do with the original advantage they incurred.
QuoteIt is a bit mindblowing but when strapped into a MRI machine and asked to make a simple up down choice the MRI operator can tell what you are going to decide before subjects report deciding.
Not really, what exactly does that prove?
Quote from: Barrister on August 03, 2012, 03:29:34 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2012, 03:20:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 03, 2012, 03:06:25 PM
Viking, it's up to you whether you "respect me" or not. You have my words before you.
Sigh... I did predict you would try to weasel out of your claim that you could prove god on the balance of probabilities. I would like to hear your argument here, I would like to hear what it takes to convince you of the most significant fact in the universe. Is there any special reason for you to not tell me what a reasonable person needs to hear to become a believer. Here I stand, as you pointed out (fatuously) in a previous post listening ready to hear. Best case scenario you save one soul for jesus, worst case you get to feel smug about how the bible predicted this in Luke 6:22.
Viking, we've gone over this material before. The Bible itself, and its message.
Look, you said you could prove to your own satisfaction that god was real. Are you seriously telling me that you would rather have me burn in hell for eternity than spend 5 or 10 minutes summarizing and referencing that evidence? That's not very christian of you. The reason I am an atheist because I have not seen any convincing evidence for his existence. I'm not wedded to any Idea show me that you are right and I am wrong and I will change my mind. Maybe you are worried that I as a fundamentalist (since I already agreed that I would be a fundamentalist if I were religious) would burn down sea food stores and murder gays and lapsed christians. I'll promise right here and now to abide by my nation's laws in all cases if that is the price of you saving my soul here and now.
Quote from: Barrister on August 03, 2012, 03:29:34 PM
All those who have experienced peace and happiness through prayer and speaking with God.
Quote"The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw
Quote from: Barrister on August 03, 2012, 03:29:34 PM
The number of other really smart people who believe in God. The very fact of existence itself (okay, this is a "God of the gaps" argument - we know about the Big Bang, but can't explain what caused the Big Bang).
It is also called the argument for ignorance
QuoteBecause there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist - Stephen Hawking
Quote from: Barrister on August 03, 2012, 03:29:34 PM
And just intuition and instinct - I feel there must be a meaning to existence, and some form of existence beyond death.
None of which is going to convince you, so I don't really feel like going into any greater detail.
Basically it makes you happy, you don't know shit about astrophysics and you like the idea of there being a god? Your feelings, your ignorance and your hope?
That's not what you said earlier.
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 04:54:19 PM
So you want me to put the existence of God on trial?
Well the thing is - in court you never have first hand evidence. You only have witnesses, and then experts who give opinions based on what the witnesses have said. And in court you absolutely never require absolute proof - depending on the matter you only require proof on a balance of probabilities, or proof beyond a resonable doubt.
Myself, I've always had a doubt God exists, so I can't say I'd find His existence proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
But balance of probabilities? Well like I said you have lots of witnesses who say they've seen Him and talked to Him. You have the historical records showing His words (the Bible). And you'll find plenty of Experts who say looking at the world and its beauty means there is a God.
So yes - I think His existence could be proven on a balance of probabilities. :)
Where are your witnesses of Jesus? Did I just spend waste an hour on getting up to speed on Bart Ehrman and the German Biblical Scholars? I was re-reading the text of the huxley wilberforce debate for your design argument.
That's it? WTF?
Quote from: Barrister on August 03, 2012, 03:29:34 PM
The very fact of existence itself (okay, this is a "God of the gaps" argument - we know about the Big Bang, but can't explain what caused the Big Bang).
Surely you do not really believe that this is evidence of anything - if something must be "caused" to come into existence, then what caused your god? If your god needed no "cause," then why assume that the Big Bang needs a "cause?"
A simple thought experiment will convince you that the idea of a god outside spacetime (which started with the Big Bang, insofar as we know, but whatever started it, there couldn't be any gods outside it). Time is the difference between cause and effect - that is, if there are two events that cannot exist independently, then the difference between the cause and the effect is only time. If time doesn't exist (in other words, if the universe/spacetime doesn't exist), then there is no difference between cause and effect. The universe would create the god as much as the god would create the universe.
So, the Big Bang as evidence of the existence of gods is logically untenable. It is possible that a god existing in a previous or "higher-level" spacetime created the Big bang we know of, but that just gets us back to how
that spacetime came into being. In the final analysis, it cannot be gods creating time. The argument that your god exists outside spacetime also is an admission that he can't create anything, because creation is a phenomenon of time.
So, are you guys close on the consensus here? :unsure:
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2012, 03:50:11 PM
Look, you said you could prove to your own satisfaction that god was real. Are you seriously telling me that you would rather have me burn in hell for eternity than spend 5 or 10 minutes summarizing and referencing that evidence? That's not very christian of you. The reason I am an atheist because I have not seen any convincing evidence for his existence. I'm not wedded to any Idea show me that you are right and I am wrong and I will change my mind. Maybe you are worried that I as a fundamentalist (since I already agreed that I would be a fundamentalist if I were religious) would burn down sea food stores and murder gays and lapsed christians. I'll promise right here and now to abide by my nation's laws in all cases if that is the price of you saving my soul here and now.
What a really, really bizarre post. Why on earth would I want you to become a Christian fundamentalist? They're scracely any better than militant atheists.
Quote
Where are your witnesses of Jesus? Did I just spend waste an hour on getting up to speed on Bart Ehrman and the German Biblical Scholars? I was re-reading the text of the huxley wilberforce debate for your design argument.
That's it? WTF?
You really are scaring me if this is true. I'm just posting in my spare time while I'm at work. Hell I ran a trial in the middle of this debate.
Viking, just chill.
Quote from: DGuller on August 03, 2012, 03:57:03 PM
So, are you guys close on the consensus here? :unsure:
I think there was a consensus before we started:
(1) people engage in magical thinking in order to justify their belief in their particular deity; and
(2) people engage in magical thinking in order to justify their belief that morality is instinctual (wholly or partly).
Joan, do you use some external editor to do your posts, your end quote code and extra start quote codes are always in caps.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 03:46:52 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2012, 02:19:10 PM
I don't understand how you get to this conclusion. Could you expand on this?
I did already but I can do it again.
By rejecting the possibility of normative moral judgment based in reason, all you are left with is a empirical account for behavior and some speculative hypotheses about how that behavior might have arisen.
Under such an account, the only source for normative moral judgment has to be supernatural since there can be no natural or human source for it.
That is the very argument theists (and non-theistic moral rationalists) make against this kind of account. The difference being that the theists use the argument to contend that normative moral judgments require super-natural agency, moral rationalists contend that human agency through the use of human capacities is sufficient.
OK, yes, that makes sense. I don't reject normative moral judgment based in reason; I reject normative moral judgment. Man is the measure. I reject the entire rationalist project. I reject the idea of pre-modernist truth - the idea that there is such a thing as an external or non material truth with a big T. I am a materialist-modernist all we can know is what we can experience through our senses.
This does not mean I reject normative morals. I just accept that they are invented by humans and are only backed by sanctions (social or otherwise) by society. This is the role of religion and culture in morality. These imposed "morals" are also subjected to selective pressure as societies with normative morals with help societal success will thrive and the ones which hinder societal success will fall along with the societies which imposed them.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 03:46:52 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 12:34:34 PM
the question "what is the good" presupposes the existence of "the good" in the first place. I don't think there is a "the good" and consequently I don't think that there is any way of reasoning your way to what is "the good". . . . Virtue (the word Socrates uses for "the good") is just what Milo said it was a word we apply to attributes we approve of and respect. Basically it is what you me and all English speakers agree it is.
That's a perfectly legit philosophical position but realize that is what theists mean when they say atheists lack morality. They don't mean atheists are incapable of formulating moral rules and principles and acting by them, they mean that atheists are incapable of ascribing any normative content to them - any reason why those rules and principles should be followed beyond social convention. I happen to think that claim is false, but on your account, it is true.
Yes that claim is true. We do not have a non-material external source of normative morals. It's just that they don't either, they just think they do. This is the reason I think this issue provokes such vitriol on the religious side, merely showing how we can get our morals naturally and observing that we have the same morals god is no longer necessary for anything.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 03:46:52 PM
QuoteI think it does follow that all activties of the brain are governed by the biological evolutionary process. The brain is immensely expensive and I suggest that all it's functions are either vital or discarded. The brain came into being as part of additional uses arising through mutations. Evolution does not leave pointless attributes.
I am no expert in the area, but that statement contradicts everything I have read on the subject - i.e mutations that may spread because they were useful at some point don't just suddenly vanish when they are no longer as useful. Particularly on the time scale of later human evolution which is relatively short. In addition this doesn't take into account the fact that capabilities that spread due to some reproductive advantage may be re-purposed to other tasks that have nothing to do with the original advantage they incurred.
You are right, but it is always more complicated. Atavisms exist and continue to exist. Chickens still have the genes for making teeth and sometimes you get chicken with teeth. The same applies to human tails and whale and dolphin hind legs. In all cases these body parts continue to exist but in a nearly completely reduced form. Reach down your back to the end of your spine and you will be able to feel your tail bones, three extra vertibrae which extend past the last connection, they are in the way, break when you fall down causing much pain and have to the best of our knowledge provide no real benefit. There are even muscles attached to these bones, in monkeys the same muscles are used to move the tail. These muscles are also atrophied to nothing. The tail bone is sufficiently cheap energy wise that having to use resources to build it is not sufficient a detriment to the body that it prevents evolutionary success. The same applies to the micro-legs that whales and dolphins have (completely encased in blubber). Chicken managed to get rid of the teeth, but they recur from time to time.
The human brain however is the most energy expensive organ in our body. Despite being about 2% of body mass it uses 20% or our energy. Any small change in the brain where a bit which doesn't help survival doesn't consume energy provides a real survival advantage. In about 2 million years the homo brain has grown in size by between 100% and 200%. This is really really really fast. We don't have much spare capacity in the brain and certainly no busy sectors. The trope about using only 5% of our brain is untrue, damage any part not matter how small you will be handicapped.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 03:46:52 PM
QuoteIt is a bit mindblowing but when strapped into a MRI machine and asked to make a simple up down choice the MRI operator can tell what you are going to decide before subjects report deciding.
Not really, what exactly does that prove?
That the "I" character that you experience being inside your brain is not making the decisions, it is merely rationalizing them. We don't have free will if "we" means the "I" character inside your brain. That is what it means and I think that is mindblowing.
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2012, 03:23:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 03, 2012, 03:19:18 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2012, 02:26:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 03, 2012, 01:09:09 PM
Heh, to an extent there is a tension between what one would imagine are the evolutionarily-derived instincts and what most people would consider moral - hence, the "selfish gene".
From the horses mouth. Selfish Genes can make you altruistic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3L3QdL7HjQ&feature=related
It's only a 2 minute video (a link to the full interview is in the notes). I suspect you don't really know what Dawkins wrote in The Selfish Gene. The Selfish Gene does make the point of evolved morals much better than I could. iirc the audiobook was shorter than the lecture series that AmScip linked to timmy style sans comment.
I suspect you missed my point.
I assume you meant that evolutionary-derived instincts were selfish and thus contradicted what most people would consider moral. I just wanted to point out that the author of The Selfish Gene believes that the fact that genes are selfish causes being to be altruistic and that author obviously does not think there is any contradiction between evolutionarily-derived instincts and what most people would consider moral - hence, his chapter on how the selfish gene makes you altruistic.
You assumed wrongly. I do not pretend to know what "evolutionary-derived instincts" are. I said that what people
would imagine such things are and what they
would cosider moral are in tension. As noted below, Dawkins himself comments on that tension. Hence, a title such as the "Selfish Gene", which clearly plays on that.
Dawkins himself writes about how apparently "altruistic" behaviour can be explained in terms of his theory, but he's also careful to avoid making the kind of claims you are making. From the outset, Dawkins stated he is "not advocating a morality based on evolution."[p. 2] Instead, he is simply describing what may have actually happened in evolution. Thus, we should expect selfishness in human nature, but must "teach generosity and altruism"[p. 3], although this does not mean that we will not observe altruism in nature. "Genes are the primary-policy makers; brains are the executives."[p. 60] Dawkins indicates that brains have evolved to take control of the body, even in opposition to the inherent selfish tendencies of replicators.
Quote from: Barrister on August 03, 2012, 04:00:41 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2012, 03:50:11 PM
Look, you said you could prove to your own satisfaction that god was real. Are you seriously telling me that you would rather have me burn in hell for eternity than spend 5 or 10 minutes summarizing and referencing that evidence? That's not very christian of you. The reason I am an atheist because I have not seen any convincing evidence for his existence. I'm not wedded to any Idea show me that you are right and I am wrong and I will change my mind. Maybe you are worried that I as a fundamentalist (since I already agreed that I would be a fundamentalist if I were religious) would burn down sea food stores and murder gays and lapsed christians. I'll promise right here and now to abide by my nation's laws in all cases if that is the price of you saving my soul here and now.
What a really, really bizarre post. Why on earth would I want you to become a Christian fundamentalist? They're scracely any better than militant atheists.
Because I want to have as many true beliefs as possible and as few false ones as possible. This is important to me.
Quote from: Barrister on August 03, 2012, 04:00:41 PM
Quote
Where are your witnesses of Jesus? Did I just spend waste an hour on getting up to speed on Bart Ehrman and the German Biblical Scholars? I was re-reading the text of the huxley wilberforce debate for your design argument.
That's it? WTF?
You really are scaring me if this is true. I'm just posting in my spare time while I'm at work. Hell I ran a trial in the middle of this debate.
Viking, just chill.
I don't have a wife or kids and don't like the crowded pubs and clubs as they are on fridays and saturdays. I'm posting this in the afternoons and evenings. So I have lots of free time. Also, I multitask well.
Maybe you should look for wife and kids...
Quote from: Malthus on August 03, 2012, 04:24:42 PM
You assumed wrongly. I do not pretend to know what "evolutionary-derived instincts" are. I said that what people would imagine such things are and what they would cosider moral are in tension. As noted below, Dawkins himself comments on that tension. Hence, a title such as the "Selfish Gene", which clearly plays on that.
I agree, most people are idiots.
Quote from: Malthus on August 03, 2012, 04:24:42 PM
Dawkins himself writes about how apparently "altruistic" behaviour can be explained in terms of his theory, but he's also careful to avoid making the kind of claims you are making. From the outset, Dawkins stated he is "not advocating a morality based on evolution."[p. 2] Instead, he is simply describing what may have actually happened in evolution. Thus, we should expect selfishness in human nature, but must "teach generosity and altruism"[p. 3], although this does not mean that we will not observe altruism in nature. "Genes are the primary-policy makers; brains are the executives."[p. 60] Dawkins indicates that brains have evolved to take control of the body, even in opposition to the inherent selfish tendencies of replicators.
If you read through the blocks of text me and joan are producing you'll see that neither do I. No fact about reality can possibly be used to justify absolute normative morals. We have an instinct for morality which naturally selected for the instincts which produced the most successful societies and in addition to that we have culturally imposed morals which are selected for the moral rules which produced the most successful societies.
There are no absolute eternal normative morals. We have instinctive morals which evolve really slowly and cultural morals which evolve really fast. I suggest that the instinctive morals are the most fundamental which are shared by all societies and most often referenced when morals are being discussed (in part because they seem universal).
We have an instinctive aversion to murder, but that is not always enough so a second cultural layer re-enforces the first.
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2012, 04:04:01 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 03, 2012, 03:57:03 PM
So, are you guys close on the consensus here? :unsure:
I think there was a consensus before we started:
(1) people engage in magical thinking in order to justify their belief in their particular deity; and
(2) people engage in magical thinking in order to justify their belief that morality is instinctual (wholly or partly).
And Grumbler gets to feel superior attacking both sides. Like usual.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 12:34:34 PMAs I understand it, you are advancing a empirical theory of morality without any normative content at all, thus avoiding Hume's fallacy. But avoiding the fallacy doesn't make the question go away. You've simply sidestepped the question at the heart of all moral reasoning - what is the good. I.e. assuming that evolutionary forces operate over time to produce a particular set of mental structures, there is no way for us to know whether those mental structures are actually right or good in any sense other than that they are the ones we happene to have
In case some of you are interested, Daniel Dennett's work has been an attempt to tackle that very question, trying to manage a space between Hume and Darwin.
Another hateful man. :(
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 03, 2012, 05:03:57 PM
In case some of you are interested, Daniel Dennett's work has been an attempt to tackle that very question, trying to manage a space between Hume and Darwin.
Dennett I thought was focused on reconciling free will and determinism. It's an inquiry that has some relevance to what Viking is talking about but not quite the same thing.
I used to not believe in things like hell, but then I came across this thread. :(
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2012, 04:20:08 PM
That the "I" character that you experience being inside your brain is not making the decisions, it is merely rationalizing them. We don't have free will if "we" means the "I" character inside your brain. That is what it means and I think that is mindblowing.
The conclusion doesn't follow from the experimental result. All the experimental result shows is that mental activity is associated with a mechanical physical manifestation, which is something even a Cartesian dualist can accept.
Quote from: DGuller on August 03, 2012, 05:21:01 PM
I used to not believe in things like hell, but then I came across this thread. :(
Damning words from an actuary. :lol:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 05:29:32 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 03, 2012, 05:21:01 PM
I used to not believe in things like hell, but then I came across this thread. :(
Damning words from an actuary. :lol:
From the Soviet Union no less.
Quote from: DGuller on August 03, 2012, 05:21:01 PM
I used to not believe in things like hell, but then I came across this thread. :(
Could be worse; we could be dealing with the magical thinkers that argue for some reason that there is no such thing as a meme (also an idea from The
Selfish Gene)! :lol:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 05:18:18 PM
Dennett I thought was focused on reconciling free will and determinism. It's an inquiry that has some relevance to what Viking is talking about but not quite the same thing.
That's his most current endpoint (and indeed, it might appeal more to Viking). However, he did some work on the nature of emotions, which in turns entails questioning their relationship to norms (and then, in turn, their evolutional emergence).
Quote from: DGuller on August 03, 2012, 05:21:01 PM
I used to not believe in things like hell, but then I came across this thread. :(
I'm somewhat amused, a poster uses Ye Olde Languish Ways to attack other posters under the guise of enquiring about some cod philosophical issue.
It's like a highly refined Languish, maybe we could bottle it and sell it as snake oil. :D
I don't know what Viking thought he'd achieve with the thread, clearly live and let live isn't a mantra he's matured into yet. :bowler:
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2012, 05:42:13 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 03, 2012, 05:21:01 PM
I used to not believe in things like hell, but then I came across this thread. :(
Could be worse; we could be dealing with the magical thinkers that argue for some reason that there is no such thing as a meme (also an idea from The Selfish Gene)! :lol:
You know if you want to talk to me, you don't have to go to through DGuller to do it. I'm actually posting on the same board.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 05:18:18 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 03, 2012, 05:03:57 PM
In case some of you are interested, Daniel Dennett's work has been an attempt to tackle that very question, trying to manage a space between Hume and Darwin.
Dennett I thought was focused on reconciling free will and determinism. It's an inquiry that has some relevance to what Viking is talking about but not quite the same thing.
Dennet has so many threads running that it's hard to call it focusing. TBH the free will/determinism bit is a bit incidental here... but we did get there..
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2012, 05:27:39 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2012, 04:20:08 PM
That the "I" character that you experience being inside your brain is not making the decisions, it is merely rationalizing them. We don't have free will if "we" means the "I" character inside your brain. That is what it means and I think that is mindblowing.
The conclusion doesn't follow from the experimental result. All the experimental result shows is that mental activity is associated with a mechanical physical manifestation, which is something even a Cartesian dualist can accept.
Well, yes, but the point I was making there was about free will.
BTW, you never did state your views on the presuppositions
Are you a dualist - beliving that humans consist of an independent mind and an independent body (basically having a soul).
Are you a determinist or a beliver in libertarian free will or hold some view inbetween
Are you a materialist - someone who believes that everything that exists is material (no trancindental or spiritual realms)
Are you a deist or theist
if it wasn't clear I am a physicalist monist, determinist, materialist and an atheist.
What differences will be observed between free will existing and free will not existing?
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2012, 04:25:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 03, 2012, 04:00:41 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2012, 03:50:11 PM
Look, you said you could prove to your own satisfaction that god was real. Are you seriously telling me that you would rather have me burn in hell for eternity than spend 5 or 10 minutes summarizing and referencing that evidence? That's not very christian of you. The reason I am an atheist because I have not seen any convincing evidence for his existence. I'm not wedded to any Idea show me that you are right and I am wrong and I will change my mind. Maybe you are worried that I as a fundamentalist (since I already agreed that I would be a fundamentalist if I were religious) would burn down sea food stores and murder gays and lapsed christians. I'll promise right here and now to abide by my nation's laws in all cases if that is the price of you saving my soul here and now.
What a really, really bizarre post. Why on earth would I want you to become a Christian fundamentalist? They're scracely any better than militant atheists.
Because I want to have as many true beliefs as possible and as few false ones as possible. This is important to me.
This just goes to what I've been saying before - we're talking different languages.
I for one am not trying to tell you I have the "one universal trurth that cannot be argued". There is plenty of doubt and uncertainty when adressing the big questions of Life, The Universe, and Everything. If you ask for absolute answers, you're going to get pretty simplistic answers IMHO. Life isn't simplistic.
I wouldn't want you to be a fundamentalist Christian because being a fundamentalist Christian is about as far removed from what I believe as what you currently believe.
If anything - I want you to reject the notion that that there is any single right answer. That questions such as this are inherently uncertain, and to embrace that uncertainty. Once you do so you might still reject God, but at least you're looking at the right questions in the right framework.
Quote from: The Brain on August 04, 2012, 01:07:07 AM
What differences will be observed between free will existing and free will not existing?
We must believe in free will.
We have no choice.
Ok, I really hate talking of religion with non-initiated people because it crosses the line of civility and quickly become proselitism.
But since this thread is about the big question, I'll say my piece.
Disclamer: I am in no way trying to proselite any of you assholes.
1- All mankind knows about G comes from revelation (written word). Without the "bible" mankind would "know" of a gazillion gods, but not from the monoteist deity that is at the core of western civilization.
2- If G is real, and all we know comes from the books, then the Torah (first 5 books in the "bible") is the begining of G revelation to mankind.
3- If the Torah is the word, then everything that follows in the "bible" have to match with the Torah. If it doesn't it ain't true.
4- Since NOTHING after the Torah matches with the Torah 100%, then the Torah is the only true message from G to mankind, and everything else after the Torah is comentaries at best, fake books at worst.
I mean, have you ever wondered why the Book of Daniel is in the Ketuvim (writtings, least importants books in the Tenach) as oppoussed to being in the Neviim Ahjronim where it should be chronologically?
Because even in old times we new it was a fake. The language and grammar in which is written does not match with the other writtings of the period. The Book of Daniel is post-diction.
Therefore, the G-d that exist is the G-d of the Torah, all powerfull, all knowing, all controlling.
The G-d that destroyed Sodoma and Gomorra, that punish the sins of the parents on their children, but also forgive and is merciful for a thousand generations, that causes the wound and heals it, that gives life and takes it.
The G-d that delivers all my enemies into my hands, and forgive my sins, and rewards my obediance.
Yes, that Bronze Age G-d is the only G-d.
Forget all your dualism, about good and evil. That's Zoroastrism influence on rabbinical judaism and christianity.
Every day thousands die, in all kinds of accidents, sickness, and wars. And thousands are born.
An oportunity to search and find G.
Only the kohanim have the right of it.
All the rest are chasing shadows, because the truth is too hard to bear.
Man is not looking for truth, they are looking for peace of mind and confirmation of their pre-coninceived beliefs.
Whatever. Do what you must, or lack thereof.
The world will keep going.
The dualism we are talking about is mind-brain duality. A mind-brain dualist thinks that there is a non-material self which exists not dependent on the brain. A mind-brain monist (such as myself) thinks that the self is a creation of the brain and exists only as a creation of the brain.
We are not talking about Manichean dualism where there are two gods the evil creator of matter and a good creator of soul.
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2012, 06:11:16 PM
Are you a dualist - beliving that humans consist of an independent mind and an independent body (basically having a soul).
Are you a determinist or a beliver in libertarian free will or hold some view inbetween
Are you a materialist - someone who believes that everything that exists is material (no trancindental or spiritual realms)
Are you a deist or theist
I think I am philosophical agnostic on all issues, although a strong form of dualism strikes me as unlikely. I don't think the question of the existence of God - if viewed as a philosophical issue and not a theological one - is really all that interesting. at least compared to the amount of attention paid to the question. If there is a transcendent being that exists, it is extremely unlikely that such a being would have any concern whether it is worshipped by a bunch of homo sapiens in any particular way (or at all).
Amusingly, Siege's theological maxims are a pretty close to those of Karaism, an medieval Jewish heresy that still has a few followers today.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 06, 2012, 06:00:45 PM
Amusingly, Siege's theological maxims are a pretty close to those of Karaism, an medieval Jewish heresy that still has a few followers today.
Man, from day one back in Paradox off topic you have tried to label me a Qara'it.
Please dude, I told you before, the Qara'im believe the entire Tenach is equal in value to the Torah.
As you perfectly know, that is pretty much heresy in judaism. Even the most mystical within the haredim doesn't dare say something like that.
The Torah supersees the nevi'im rishonim (first prophets), which in turn do so with the nevi'im ahronim (last prophets), which in turn leads the ketuvim (writtings).
Besides, I am sefaradi, and Im not aware of any sefaradi being qara'it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 06, 2012, 05:52:47 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2012, 06:11:16 PM
Are you a dualist - beliving that humans consist of an independent mind and an independent body (basically having a soul).
Are you a determinist or a beliver in libertarian free will or hold some view inbetween
Are you a materialist - someone who believes that everything that exists is material (no trancindental or spiritual realms)
Are you a deist or theist
I think I am philosophical agnostic on all issues, although a strong form of dualism strikes me as unlikely. I don't think the question of the existence of God - if viewed as a philosophical issue and not a theological one - is really all that interesting. at least compared to the amount of attention paid to the question. If there is a transcendent being that exists, it is extremely unlikely that such a being would have any concern whether it is worshipped by a bunch of homo sapiens in any particular way (or at all).
so you are a deist non-materialist leaning towards accepting some form of a non-material part of the self with no view on determinism vs free will?
What is the point of this Viking?
Quote from: Viking on August 07, 2012, 08:43:13 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 06, 2012, 05:52:47 PM
I think I am philosophical agnostic on all issues, although a strong form of dualism strikes me as unlikely. I don't think the question of the existence of God - if viewed as a philosophical issue and not a theological one - is really all that interesting. at least compared to the amount of attention paid to the question. If there is a transcendent being that exists, it is extremely unlikely that such a being would have any concern whether it is worshipped by a bunch of homo sapiens in any particular way (or at all).
so you are a deist non-materialist leaning towards accepting some form of a non-material part of the self with no view on determinism vs free will?
:lmfao:
He said exactly what he was. Why are you trying to re-write what he wrote to fit your own bizarro narrative? Give it up. You really need to think about what
you believe (not the incoherent rambling you have engaged in here) before you start to tell JR what he believes.
Quote from: grumbler on August 07, 2012, 08:50:27 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 07, 2012, 08:43:13 PM
so you are a deist non-materialist leaning towards accepting some form of a non-material part of the self with no view on determinism vs free will?
:lmfao:
He said exactly what he was. Why are you trying to re-write what he wrote to fit your own bizarro narrative? Give it up. You really need to think about what you believe (not the incoherent rambling you have engaged in here) before you start to tell JR what he believes.
It is part of making sure I understand what he means. I'm trying to see if I can describe his view in my words in a manner he agrees with. It's how one avoids constructing strawmen.
Quote from: Viking on August 07, 2012, 08:56:12 PM
It is part of making sure I understand what he means. I'm trying to see if I can describe his view in my words in a manner he agrees with. It's how one avoids constructings strawmen.
FYP. Someone who writes "Where do atheists get their morals from?" shouldn't be concerned about trying to rewrite others' words. That person should be concerned about learning how to write in English, period.
If you don't understand what JR wrote, just ask him what the words or phrases you don't understand really mean. Trying to hammer square pegs into round holes doesn't increase "understanding."
Quote from: grumbler on August 07, 2012, 09:11:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 07, 2012, 08:56:12 PM
It is part of making sure I understand what he means. I'm trying to see if I can describe his view in my words in a manner he agrees with. It's how one avoids constructings strawmen.
FYP. Someone who writes "Where do atheists get their morals from?" shouldn't be concerned about trying to rewrite others' words. That person should be concerned about learning how to write in English, period.
If you don't understand what JR wrote, just ask him what the words or phrases you don't understand really mean. Trying to hammer square pegs into round holes doesn't increase "understanding."
so you didn't see the question mark?
Quote from: Viking on August 07, 2012, 09:12:45 PM
so you didn't see the question mark?
So you didn't understand my post?
Quote from: grumbler on August 07, 2012, 09:36:22 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 07, 2012, 09:12:45 PM
so you didn't see the question mark?
So you didn't understand my post?
I understood you post perfectly well. Your paranoid mind cannot comprehend a discussion with the objective to increase learning and understanding.
I was asking him if I understood him correctly.
Quote from: Viking on August 07, 2012, 09:38:41 PM
I understood you post perfectly well. Your paranoid mind cannot comprehend a discussion with the objective to increase learning and understanding.
Didn't take long for the ad hom to make its appearance! :lol:
QuoteI was asking him if I understood him correctly.
He said he was a "philosophical agnostic" on "deist or theist," so you asked if you understood correctly that he was a deist? That makes a lot of sense. He said he was a "philosophical agnostic" on "materialist," so you asked if you understood correctly that he was a non-materialist? That makes sense, as well. You insist on binary solutions to problems that are not binary.
Quote from: Siege on August 07, 2012, 08:39:51 PM
Man, from day one back in Paradox off topic you have tried to label me a Qara'it.
Please dude, I told you before, the Qara'im believe the entire Tenach is equal in value to the Torah.
Not so. The Karaites hold as do talmudic Jews that the Torah was directly dictated by God to Moses, whereas the writings, prophetic books etc. are divinely inspired but not the direct word of God. AFAIK no Jewish sect has every held that the writings are "fakes," unless you count Trotskyites as a branch of Judaism.
The key area where you agree with karaism is your rejection of the Oral Lawm, including the Mishneh. Even the Falasha don't reject the legitimacy of the Oral Law as a concept.
QuoteBesides, I am sefaradi, and Im not aware of any sefaradi being qara'it.
There were plently of Spanish Karaites during the medieval period. There are a few left in Turkey even now.
Quote from: grumbler on August 08, 2012, 03:41:42 AM
You insist on binary solutions to problems that are not binary.
That seems to be Viking's fundamental problem on the topic in a nutshell.
Quote from: Viking on August 07, 2012, 08:43:13 PM
so you are a deist non-materialist leaning towards accepting some form of a non-material part of the self with no view on determinism vs free will?
No.
By philosophical agnostic, I mean that I hold that those questions are ones that are not capable of any determinative answer, at least with the methodologies presently at our disposal. It might be that some conceivable future experiment could be designed to resolve one or more of these matters, but it either hasn't happened yet or I don't know about it.
I'm also not committed to any particular position on these issues out of some kind of philosophical preference. My only real beef with hard dualism is that it seems superfluous and is thus vulnerable to Ockham's Razor but that isn't real disproof. Personally I follow certain religious rituals or traditions, for personal and communal reasons, without being committed to any particular theological viewpoint.
Quote from: Barrister on August 08, 2012, 09:38:43 AM
That seems to be Viking's fundamental problem on the topic in a nutshell.
it's deeper than that - there is also a categorical error.
If I were to ask a question "What is love?," a scientist might say that what humans experience as love is just the brain processing certain electro-chemical stimuli that have been developed over aeons in response to evolutionary processes.
That may very well be an accurate description of the physical process but it doesn't answer the question at a fundamental level - because the question relates to a human experience, not the physical mechanism that is the pre-requisite for having that experience.
The most obvious answer to the question "Does God exist?" is yes - because the majority of human beings in the world have some kind of regular, direct interaction with God, whether in the form of prayer, dreams, visions, or even direct verbal communication. One cannot reasonably claim this interaction is not "real" -- there is zero reason to believe that people who have these contacts and experiences are not accurately reporting them. These are real phenomena. Of course, one can claim that the people having these experiences are delusional and are systematically misunderstanding the true nature of their experiences. But that require some objective framework or standpoint to judge which subjective experiences by others are true and which are mere delusions - and where in Viking's own belief system does that truth criterion arise? And if one does make the claim of delusion, it amounts to saying the the majority of human beings past and present are delusional with only a relatively small minority being sane.
I am less reluctant than Viking appears to me to start making such sweeping judgments about the validity of the subjective experiences of others, and while I do think science and logic provide very useful tools for making objective statements about the world, those tools are subject to certain limitations in terms of the kinds of questions they can profitably address and the extent they can provide definitive answers.
:huh:
We routinely examine whether something can be objectively considered truthful or not already.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 08, 2012, 10:26:07 AM
:huh:
We routinely examine whether something can be objectively considered truthful or not already.
Yes, are not infrequently we examine and determine that we can not come up with a conclusive answer.
I think Viking is trying to figure out if he can respect JR or not.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2012, 10:10:07 AM
it's deeper than that - there is also a categorical error.
If I were to ask a question "What is love?," a scientist might say that what humans experience as love is just the brain processing certain electro-chemical stimuli that have been developed over aeons in response to evolutionary processes.
That may very well be an accurate description of the physical process but it doesn't answer the question at a fundamental level - because the question relates to a human experience, not the physical mechanism that is the pre-requisite for having that experience.
The most obvious answer to the question "Does God exist?" is yes - because the majority of human beings in the world have some kind of regular, direct interaction with God, whether in the form of prayer, dreams, visions, or even direct verbal communication. One cannot reasonably claim this interaction is not "real" -- there is zero reason to believe that people who have these contacts and experiences are not accurately reporting them. These are real phenomena. Of course, one can claim that the people having these experiences are delusional and are systematically misunderstanding the true nature of their experiences. But that require some objective framework or standpoint to judge which subjective experiences by others are true and which are mere delusions - and where in Viking's own belief system does that truth criterion arise? And if one does make the claim of delusion, it amounts to saying the the majority of human beings past and present are delusional with only a relatively small minority being sane.
I am less reluctant than Viking appears to me to start making such sweeping judgments about the validity of the subjective experiences of others, and while I do think science and logic provide very useful tools for making objective statements about the world, those tools are subject to certain limitations in terms of the kinds of questions they can profitably address and the extent they can provide definitive answers.
Other than romantic comedies and romance novels not many people would describe love as having actual measurable physical impact on the world apart from motivating humans to act. Similarly only rarely do we expect others to love the same things that we do. Religious experience isn't accorded the same element of skepticism as far as applicability to the nature of the universe. Love is usually narrowly targeted, non-transferable and socially acceptable, while religious experience is given the choice of either being a revelation of the mysteries of the universe or the delusions of a madman.
I'm not convinced religious experience is either one.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2012, 10:10:07 AM
The most obvious answer to the question "Does God exist?" is yes - because the majority of human beings in the world have some kind of regular, direct interaction with God, whether in the form of prayer, dreams, visions, or even direct verbal communication. One cannot reasonably claim this interaction is not "real" -- there is zero reason to believe that people who have these contacts and experiences are not accurately reporting them. These are real phenomena. Of course, one can claim that the people having these experiences are delusional and are systematically misunderstanding the true nature of their experiences. But that require some objective framework or standpoint to judge which subjective experiences by others are true and which are mere delusions - and where in Viking's own belief system does that truth criterion arise? And if one does make the claim of delusion, it amounts to saying the the majority of human beings past and present are delusional with only a relatively small minority being sane.
I think you are setting up a false choice here.
There are choices other than "God exists" and "Everyone who believes god exists is delusional".
Quote from: Berkut on August 08, 2012, 11:40:25 AM
There are choices other than "God exists" and "Everyone who believes god exists is delusional".
There are such choices, but I don't think those choices are available to Viking given the other positions he has taken.
But I will let him address that and not put words in his mouth.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2012, 10:10:07 AM
The most obvious answer to the question "Does God exist?" is yes - because the majority of human beings in the world have some kind of regular, direct interaction with God, whether in the form of prayer, dreams, visions, or even direct verbal communication.
So the most obvious answer to the question "does magic exist" is yes, because the majority of human beings in the world's history have had direct experience of magic, whether in the form of curses, weather dances, bad luck from performing taboo acts, or even speaking with magical beings?
I suppose that, if you simply note that the obvious answer has no more chance of being right than a more subtle answer, your point is true and the answer to my question is yes. Not sure that declaring something is "the most obvious" gets us anywhere in that case, though.
Oh, boy the atheist brigade is out in force today.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2012, 12:12:53 PM
Oh, boy the atheist brigade is out in force today.
Sometimes, I miss Torquemada.
Quote from: grumbler on August 08, 2012, 11:56:21 AM
So the most obvious answer to the question "does magic exist" is yes
Sure it does. David Copperfield has made millions off of it.
But if the question is whether magical incatations and spells can cause actual effects in the real world, that is an empirical inquiry amenable to experimental analysis. Since magic, other than for the purposes of entertainment, has no point other than to generate real effects, that inquiry is probably sufficient to resolve the matter.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2012, 12:12:53 PM
Oh, boy the atheist brigade is out in force today.
Hey, not all of us are militant :(
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2012, 12:12:53 PM
Oh, boy the atheist brigade is out in force today.
Onward, atheist soldiers, marching as to war,
vicious internet flames going on before.
Dawkins, the science master, leads against the foe;
forward into battle see his banners go!
Quote from: HVC on August 08, 2012, 01:04:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2012, 12:12:53 PM
Oh, boy the atheist brigade is out in force today.
Hey, not all of us are militant :(
No, you are okay. I find the militant and the patronizing types annoying.
Sorry, but I only get to be militant and patronizing on the Internet. You're not taking that away from me.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 08, 2012, 01:21:10 PM
Sorry, but I only get to be militant and patronizing on the Internet. You're not taking that away from me.
Being militant and patronizing is something of a professional specialty of mine. -_-
Quote from: Iormlund on August 08, 2012, 01:21:10 PM
Sorry, but I only get to be militant and patronizing on the Internet. You're not taking that away from me.
I'm an American. I can take anything away from anyone.
Quote from: Barrister on August 08, 2012, 09:38:43 AM
Quote from: grumbler on August 08, 2012, 03:41:42 AM
You insist on binary solutions to problems that are not binary.
That seems to be Viking's fundamental problem on the topic in a nutshell.
If this is a problem it is a problem with reality. You can't be a bit pregnant or somewhere on the scale from 0% pregnant to 100% pregnant.
On dualism, either a soul exists or it does not.
On materialism, either all that exists is matter or all that exists is not matter
On theism/deism/atheism, either an intervening god exists or a non-intervening god exists or no god exists
these three issues (determinism is different) you have binary (or trinary) answers. If anything exists that is soul then monism is wrong, completely wrong, if anything exists that is not matter then materialism is wrong, completely wrong. These are truth claims, they are not knowledge claims. If you make them as knowledge claims then "I don't know" is a further specific answer.
My fundamental "problem" is that I am never satisfied with "I don't know" or "I can't know" as answers or conclusions. If the first is your answer you really should shut up and not contribute. If the second is your answer you are making a statement of breathtaking arrogance that you cannot possibly know to be true. The discussion should happen between those who think they have some sort of knowledge.
Viking, you aren't going to be satisfied with most of life if that's your attitude.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2012, 02:06:24 PM
Viking, you aren't going to be satisfied with most of life if that's your attitude.
Seriously.
How do demands for absolute truth fit with:
QuoteI'm sorry but you don't know shit about science if you think that it thinks it has conquered uncertainty. Only faith leads to certainty. I have no faith and I have non idea that I am certain on. Every single idea I have is subject to being changed with new evidence (check out my sig).
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 02:00:01 PM
these three issues (determinism is different) you have binary (or trinary) answers. If anything exists that is soul then monism is wrong, completely wrong, if anything exists that is not matter then materialism is wrong, completely wrong. These are truth claims, they are not knowledge claims. If you make them as knowledge claims then "I don't know" is a further specific answer.
If you are making a truth claim, then you need to set out your criteria for truth and the basis for deeming those criteria satisfied in the individual case.
QuoteMy fundamental "problem" is that I am never satisfied with "I don't know" or "I can't know" as answers or conclusions. .
That puts paid to epistemological skepticism, but the problem is that your subjective satisfaction is not an argument likely to command much weight.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2012, 09:39:03 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 07, 2012, 08:43:13 PM
so you are a deist non-materialist leaning towards accepting some form of a non-material part of the self with no view on determinism vs free will?
No.
By philosophical agnostic, I mean that I hold that those questions are ones that are not capable of any determinative answer, at least with the methodologies presently at our disposal. It might be that some conceivable future experiment could be designed to resolve one or more of these matters, but it either hasn't happened yet or I don't know about it.
Fair enough. If you don't know you don't know. I suggest we do have methodologies to answer these questions
Neuroscience vs philosophy: Taking aim at free will (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html)
may be a good place to start on the FMRI free will vs determinism. The consequences on monism vs dualism are quite profound. These experiments really did shake up my worldview.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2012, 09:39:03 AM
I'm also not committed to any particular position on these issues out of some kind of philosophical preference. My only real beef with hard dualism is that it seems superfluous and is thus vulnerable to Ockham's Razor but that isn't real disproof.
I never like it when adjectives are used in definitions or attributions. I can't see how if lex parsimony makes a full soul superfluous that it also doesn't make a partial soul or marginal soul equally superfluous. You will never find disproof for a claim that something exists but has no effect on the material world. Lex parsimony is specifically a reaction to claims like that that demand disproof. Sagan's and Hitchen's razors (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence) deal with this equally well.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2012, 09:39:03 AM
Personally I follow certain religious rituals or traditions, for personal and communal reasons, without being committed to any particular theological viewpoint.
I have no problem with that.
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 02:00:01 PM
If this is a problem it is a problem with reality. You can't be a bit pregnant or somewhere on the scale from 0% pregnant to 100% pregnant.
Except you can, in fact, be just a little bit pregnant. The difference between a zygote travelling down the fallopian tube, and a 40 week old fetus, are fairly profound. If you've followed the abortion debate at all you'll note that the issue of "when does life begin" is pretty hotly contested.
The set of real numbers is an either/or thing: it's either zero, or a non-zero number.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2012, 10:10:07 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 08, 2012, 09:38:43 AM
That seems to be Viking's fundamental problem on the topic in a nutshell.
it's deeper than that - there is also a categorical error.
I'm goinig to have to deal with this... sigh..
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2012, 10:10:07 AM
If I were to ask a question "What is love?," a scientist might say that what humans experience as love is just the brain processing certain electro-chemical stimuli that have been developed over aeons in response to evolutionary processes.
That may very well be an accurate description of the physical process but it doesn't answer the question at a fundamental level - because the question relates to a human experience, not the physical mechanism that is the pre-requisite for having that experience.
You just made a deepity (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepity). If you want to think about the relation between the change in the electro-chemical environment of the brain we humans have decided to call love then we as "how do you feel about experiencing love". Personally I think Psychiatry is a science (though the issue continues to be up for debate). If you are going to insist that there is a fundamental level below the physical I'm going to have to ask you if you were honest when you claimed philosophical agnosticism on materialism and determinism, because right now it looks like you're not.
When you use the word "fundamental level" you are making no sense and you are certainly not defining your terms.
One piece of advice, never use the phrase "a scientist might say" - too many creationists have used that phrase creating science strawmen to provoke anything other than instinctive dismissal of anything that is said after that. What neurochemists or neurobiologists
DO say is more relevant.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2012, 10:10:07 AM
The most obvious answer to the question "Does God exist?" is yes
- because the majority of human beings in the world have some kind of regular, direct interaction with God, whether in the form of prayer, dreams, visions, or even direct verbal communication. One cannot reasonably claim this interaction is not "real" -- there is zero reason to believe that people who have these contacts and experiences are not accurately reporting them. These are real phenomena. Of course, one can claim that the people having these experiences are delusional and are systematically misunderstanding the true nature of their experiences. But that require some objective framework or standpoint to judge which subjective experiences by others are true and which are mere delusions - and where in Viking's own belief system does that truth criterion arise?
This just makes my head hurt... The most obivous answer to the question "Does your God exist?" is no following your logic. Just because everybody is wrong doesn't mean reality changes, argumentum ad populum etc.
With regard to subjective experiences they are only truth claims of the experience, not of the truth of the content of the experience. IIRC about 42 billion humans have lived through human history and the vast majority of them has been wrong on practically every single issue of universal concern in human history. Subjective experiences, however popular, are proof of nothing since the content of those experiences vary with culture and over time as well as being mutually exclusive.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2012, 10:10:07 AMAnd if one does make the claim of delusion, it amounts to saying the the majority of human beings past and present are delusional with only a relatively small minority being sane.
I am less reluctant than Viking appears to me to start making such sweeping judgments about the validity of the subjective experiences of others, and while I do think science and logic provide very useful tools for making objective statements about the world, those tools are subject to certain limitations in terms of the kinds of questions they can profitably address and the extent they can provide definitive answers.
It does not amount to a claim that the vast majority of all humans in history are not sane, but rather that fictional experience happening fully contained within the brain is normal. I have dreams every night; often I have hyper real dreams where I think i'm awake.
Alien Abduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectives_on_the_abduction_phenomenon) phenomena have ,as a historical experiment, shown that the nature of the interaction with the abductors is cultural. The knowledge of what aliens are supposed to be like determines the description people have in their alien interactions. Before the idea of the existence of aliens abduction phenomena included witches, incubus (still with the anal probing) and succubus. The descriptions of these evens are always cultural. Catholics will see Mary, Protestants Jesus, Muslims the angel Gabriel etc.
Quote from: Berkut on August 08, 2012, 11:40:25 AM
I think you are setting up a false choice here.
There are choices other than "God exists" and "Everyone who believes god exists is delusional wrong about that belief".
fyp. I don't know what mean when you use "delusional", the word can be pretty pejorative, so define your terms in cases like this. But, unlike JR ( :hug: on the not putting words in my mouth btw) don't seem to worry about putting words in my mouth.
Either god exists or those who believe god exists are wrong. I can reduce it even further "logically" to "Either a God exists or no God exists".
Quote from: Richard Dawkins on August 08, 2012, 12:26:26 PM
Quote from: William Lane Craig on August 08, 2012, 11:56:21 AM
So the most obvious answer to the question "does god exist" is yes
Sure it does. Pat Robertson has made millions off of him.
But if the question is whether god can cause actual effects in the real world, that is an empirical inquiry amenable to experimental analysis. Since god, other than for the purposes of entertainment, has no point other than to generate real effects, that inquiry is probably sufficient to resolve the matter.
I found this on a different forum.
Quote from: HVC on August 08, 2012, 01:04:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2012, 12:12:53 PM
Oh, boy the atheist brigade is out in force today.
Hey, not all of us are militant :(
hey, you started this by declaring me militant without reading my post.
what do you mean by militant. Define your terms.
Quote from: Malthus on August 08, 2012, 01:13:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2012, 12:12:53 PM
Oh, boy the atheist brigade is out in force today.
Onward, atheist soldiers, marching as to war,
vicious internet flames going on before.
Dawkins, the science master, leads against the foe;
forward into battle see his banners go!
Again the "atheism is just another religion" fallacy. To keep it at the silly level "atheism is to religion what baldness is to hair color" and "atheism is a religion like non-stamp collecting is a hobby".
I think it is sad to consider that too much noise here is generated by religiously motivated trolls declaring us crazy.
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 03:15:04 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 08, 2012, 01:13:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2012, 12:12:53 PM
Oh, boy the atheist brigade is out in force today.
Onward, atheist soldiers, marching as to war,
vicious internet flames going on before.
Dawkins, the science master, leads against the foe;
forward into battle see his banners go!
Again the "atheism is just another religion" fallacy. To keep it at the silly level "atheism is to religion what baldness is to hair color" and "atheism is a religion like non-stamp collecting is a hobby".
I think it is sad to consider that too much noise here is generated by religiously motivated trolls declaring us crazy.
Atheism is certainly not just another religion.
Your zeal in prosecuting your internet campaign against religion certainly is carried forth with religious-like fervour.
You seem to miss that many of those who are arguing with you are atheists/agnostics themelves.
Quote from: frunk on August 08, 2012, 02:19:52 PM
How do demands for absolute truth fit with:
QuoteI'm sorry but you don't know shit about science if you think that it thinks it has conquered uncertainty. Only faith leads to certainty. I have no faith and I have non idea that I am certain on. Every single idea I have is subject to being changed with new evidence (check out my sig).
I take it this in an attempt to point out a supposed contradiction between acknowledging that there will always be uncertainty and epistemological scepticism as a conclusion. The process is to reduce the uncertainty to the smallest possible level. There is no conflict there. Even if the grand theory of everything is reached and it turns out that this is truth with a capitial "T" that idea will remain subject to revision should contradicting evidence show up and the search will continue.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2012, 02:24:44 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 02:00:01 PM
these three issues (determinism is different) you have binary (or trinary) answers. If anything exists that is soul then monism is wrong, completely wrong, if anything exists that is not matter then materialism is wrong, completely wrong. These are truth claims, they are not knowledge claims. If you make them as knowledge claims then "I don't know" is a further specific answer.
If you are making a truth claim, then you need to set out your criteria for truth and the basis for deeming those criteria satisfied in the individual case.
I'm not making a truth claim or setting the criteria I'm saying that there are true answers to those questions, I'm not saying I know what the truth is. I think I may have expressed myself unclearly there.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2012, 02:24:44 PM
QuoteMy fundamental "problem" is that I am never satisfied with "I don't know" or "I can't know" as answers or conclusions. .
That puts paid to epistemological skepticism, but the problem is that your subjective satisfaction is not an argument likely to command much weight.
We were talking about what "my problem" was so naturally my subjective satisfaction is highly relevant as to why I'm having a "problem" with something. I'm reasonably sure I have already made my view of knowledge clear. There is knowledge and all the knowledge there is came from examining the material world.
I'm a sceptic in the colloquial sense, but I'm reasonably sure I haven't used the word to describe myself of my ideas in this thread and I am certainly not a philosophical sceptic.
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 03:15:04 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 08, 2012, 01:13:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2012, 12:12:53 PM
Oh, boy the atheist brigade is out in force today.
Onward, atheist soldiers, marching as to war,
vicious internet flames going on before.
Dawkins, the science master, leads against the foe;
forward into battle see his banners go!
Again the "atheism is just another religion" fallacy. To keep it at the silly level "atheism is to religion what baldness is to hair color" and "atheism is a religion like non-stamp collecting is a hobby".
I think it is sad to consider that too much noise here is generated by religiously motivated trolls declaring us crazy.
Good for you, you memorized the stock responses. Like a Liturgy. It's not a religion, but inspires the same fanaticism, hatred, dogmatic thinking that the worst religion has to offer.
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 03:15:04 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 08, 2012, 01:13:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2012, 12:12:53 PM
Oh, boy the atheist brigade is out in force today.
Onward, atheist soldiers, marching as to war,
vicious internet flames going on before.
Dawkins, the science master, leads against the foe;
forward into battle see his banners go!
Again the "atheism is just another religion" fallacy. To keep it at the silly level "atheism is to religion what baldness is to hair color" and "atheism is a religion like non-stamp collecting is a hobby".
I think it is sad to consider that too much noise here is generated by religiously motivated trolls declaring us crazy.
Dude. We are making fun of *you*, not "atheists". :P The fact that your reasoning appears to be similar to that of a fundie doesn't mean atheism is a religion, at all.
You remind me of this chick I knew many, many years ago (yes she was hott, and yes I was trying to get into her pants - that is not, however, the point of resemblence :P ). She was a dyed in the wool Troskyist. Now, I had no fucking clue as to the exact meaning of Trotsyism, though you can bet, being a horny 17 year old, I pretended an interest like crazy. :D All I knew was that she was a fanatic on the topic - in that she would not shut up about it, and she was not suceptible to reason on the topic.
She said something to me that has always remained with me. Over a joint and a bottle of wine, she confessed to her deepest, darkest secret - that, once upon a time,
she had been a believing Catholic, and worse, she had been a totally committed and fanatical one. She then said, "can you believe that? Me, a Catholic?" as if it was absolutely impossible that a person so committed to Trotsyism could ever have been just as committed to Catholicism.
Of course I was thinking "you bet I can. I bet you were just as tedious about your Catholicism then as you are about your Trotskyism now", but of course I didn't say it.
If I had, as well as spoiling all my chances of getting laid (which were non-existent anyway - hott as she was, the cost of pretending an interest in Trotskyism was simply too high to maintain), no doubt she would have pointed out that Trotsyism in no way resembled Catholicism.
Which is true but of course entirely not the point.
Quote from: Barrister on August 08, 2012, 02:45:10 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 02:00:01 PM
If this is a problem it is a problem with reality. You can't be a bit pregnant or somewhere on the scale from 0% pregnant to 100% pregnant.
Except you can, in fact, be just a little bit pregnant. The difference between a zygote travelling down the fallopian tube, and a 40 week old fetus, are fairly profound. If you've followed the abortion debate at all you'll note that the issue of "when does life begin" is pretty hotly contested.
Seriously WTF? I have followed the debate and the issue of when life begins is completely irrelevant to if there is a pregnancy or no. Even if pregnancy did not start at conception you are not partially pregnant at any stage in the process you are either pregnant and the process is partially completed or you are not pregnant and the process hasn't started.
Did you really think your post above was relevant to the issue? If yes please explain how. If not, stfu.
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 03:24:46 PM
I take it this in an attempt to point out a supposed contradiction between acknowledging that there will always be uncertainty and epistemological scepticism as a conclusion. The process is to reduce the uncertainty to the smallest possible level. There is no conflict there. Even if the grand theory of everything is reached and it turns out that this is truth with a capitial "T" that idea will remain subject to revision should contradicting evidence show up and the search will continue.
I agree, but your supposed revulsion at "I don't know" is either at odds with acknowledging that nothing can be known with certainty or you live eternally tormented by the fundamental uncertainty of existence.
Quote from: Barrister on August 08, 2012, 03:18:32 PM
Atheism is certainly not just another religion.
Your zeal in prosecuting your internet campaign against religion certainly is carried forth with religious-like fervour.
You seem to miss that many of those who are arguing with you are atheists/agnostics themelves.
You don't have to post in this thread, you do realize that. This thread started with me being effectively called a bigot by the usual suspects. I certainly don't accept that accusation.
You might think I'm a zealous activist with a religious-like fervor. Well I think it is natural to be pissed off when you mendaciously claim to have good evidence for god. I think it natural to be pissed off when I get slandered and lied to.
This thread started with an honest attempt to explain where I think all people get their morality from and to explain why the Norwegian resistance followed that morality and the Iraqi insurgents did not.
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 03:51:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 08, 2012, 03:18:32 PM
Atheism is certainly not just another religion.
Your zeal in prosecuting your internet campaign against religion certainly is carried forth with religious-like fervour.
You seem to miss that many of those who are arguing with you are atheists/agnostics themelves.
You don't have to post in this thread, you do realize that. This thread started with me being effectively called a bigot by the usual suspects. I certainly don't accept that accusation.
You might think I'm a zealous activist with a religious-like fervor. Well I think it is natural to be pissed off when you mendaciously claim to have good evidence for god. I think it natural to be pissed off when I get slandered and lied to.
This thread started with an honest attempt to explain where I think all people get their morality from and to explain why the Norwegian resistance followed that morality and the Iraqi insurgents did not.
What else would you call a person who can't respect others because of their religion?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2012, 03:36:27 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 03:15:04 PM
Again the "atheism is just another religion" fallacy. To keep it at the silly level "atheism is to religion what baldness is to hair color" and "atheism is a religion like non-stamp collecting is a hobby".
I think it is sad to consider that too much noise here is generated by religiously motivated trolls declaring us crazy.
Good for you, you memorized the stock responses. Like a Liturgy. It's not a religion, but inspires the same fanaticism, hatred, dogmatic thinking that the worst religion has to offer.
Fuck you Raz for merely quote mining me and thank you Raz for so amply demonstrating my point.
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 03:54:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2012, 03:36:27 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 03:15:04 PM
Again the "atheism is just another religion" fallacy. To keep it at the silly level "atheism is to religion what baldness is to hair color" and "atheism is a religion like non-stamp collecting is a hobby".
I think it is sad to consider that too much noise here is generated by religiously motivated trolls declaring us crazy.
Good for you, you memorized the stock responses. Like a Liturgy. It's not a religion, but inspires the same fanaticism, hatred, dogmatic thinking that the worst religion has to offer.
Fuck you Raz for merely quote mining me and thank you Raz for so amply demonstrating my point.
Was there a part of that post I left out?
Quote from: Malthus on August 08, 2012, 03:37:29 PM
Dude. We are making fun of *you*, not "atheists". :P The fact that your reasoning appears to be similar to that of a fundie doesn't mean atheism is a religion, at all.
You remind me of this chick I knew many, many years ago (yes she was hott, and yes I was trying to get into her pants - that is not, however, the point of resemblence :P ). She was a dyed in the wool Troskyist. Now, I had no fucking clue as to the exact meaning of Trotsyism, though you can bet, being a horny 17 year old, I pretended an interest like crazy. :D All I knew was that she was a fanatic on the topic - in that she would not shut up about it, and she was not suceptible to reason on the topic.
She said something to me that has always remained with me. Over a joint and a bottle of wine, she confessed to her deepest, darkest secret - that, once upon a time, she had been a believing Catholic, and worse, she had been a totally committed and fanatical one. She then said, "can you believe that? Me, a Catholic?" as if it was absolutely impossible that a person so committed to Trotsyism could ever have been just as committed to Catholicism.
Of course I was thinking "you bet I can. I bet you were just as tedious about your Catholicism then as you are about your Trotskyism now", but of course I didn't say it.
If I had, as well as spoiling all my chances of getting laid (which were non-existent anyway - hott as she was, the cost of pretending an interest in Trotskyism was simply too high to maintain), no doubt she would have pointed out that Trotsyism in no way resembled Catholicism.
Which is true but of course entirely not the point.
gnōthi seauton
I posted earlier in this thread that if I actually did believe in a god I would be a fundamentalist. So you're not telling me anything new I have known this for a long time. Way back when I did read the bible cover to cover (though bart ehrman said I should have read the gospels in parallel) I did ask myself what I would do if this stuff was actually true and what I would do if God did exist.
If god does exist then that is the most significant fact in the history of the universe. The fundamentalists make sense to me. The presuppositions are wrong so naturally their conclusions are wrong as well but their process is honest, moral and correct. If god says gays must be killed and he will punish me with an eternity of torment if I don't go on a killing spree then I think the choice is obvious.
Understanding a suicide bomber is easy. A little pain and immorality in this life leads to redemption and paradise for you and 40 of your relatives? Easy. Understanding the moderate christian is hard. To me the moderate is sacrificing well being in the after-life for well being in this one. The only way the moderate christian (or jew or muslim) makes any sense is if he either is a closet atheist or he sincerely thinks that the god he invented in his own mind which approves of his own choices is real.
Moderate christians do not live as if god were real and jesus died for their sins.
Quote from: frunk on August 08, 2012, 03:49:08 PM
I agree, but your supposed revulsion at "I don't know" is either at odds with acknowledging that nothing can be known with certainty or you live eternally tormented by the fundamental uncertainty of existence.
Ah, OK. I live in a reality where nothing can be known with a 100% certainly but that knowledge exists and affects our lives. I can have uncertain knowledge that I treat as provisional truth and live with that. In my world there is no capital "T" truth but there is lots of lower case truth about.
I don't think uncertainty is a torment, I think it is a fact of life. My revulsion was for the idea that any uncertainty in knowledge means that there is no knowledge. I am not sure the world is round, but that doesn't mean that any other shape (yes I know it is an unbalanced oblate spheroid if you smooth out the terrain features) is just as likely. The provisional truth is that it is round and I accept that provisional truth because it is the best explanation for the observed facts.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2012, 03:53:31 PM
What else would you call a person who can't respect others because of their religion?
I respect your right to have a religion. That is intimately connected to my right not to have one. I just don't have to respect your beliefs or show you respect when you assert them as true.
Quote
The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
this is an assertion that stands and falls on it's own merits and your acceptance of these assertions affects my judgement on your character and if you deserve my respect. You get to believe this tripe and I get to mock you when you do.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2012, 03:56:05 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 03:54:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2012, 03:36:27 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 03:15:04 PM
Again the "atheism is just another religion" fallacy. To keep it at the silly level "atheism is to religion what baldness is to hair color" and "atheism is a religion like non-stamp collecting is a hobby".
I think it is sad to consider that too much noise here is generated by religiously motivated trolls declaring us crazy.
Good for you, you memorized the stock responses. Like a Liturgy. It's not a religion, but inspires the same fanaticism, hatred, dogmatic thinking that the worst religion has to offer.
Fuck you Raz for merely quote mining me and thank you Raz for so amply demonstrating my point.
Was there a part of that post I left out?
you ignore the bit where I said I was going to be silly when you were criticizing me for being silly.
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 04:10:55 PM
gnōthi seauton
I posted earlier in this thread that if I actually did believe in a god I would be a fundamentalist. So you're not telling me anything new I have known this for a long time. Way back when I did read the bible cover to cover (though bart ehrman said I should have read the gospels in parallel) I did ask myself what I would do if this stuff was actually true and what I would do if God did exist.
If god does exist then that is the most significant fact in the history of the universe. The fundamentalists make sense to me. The presuppositions are wrong so naturally their conclusions are wrong as well but their process is honest, moral and correct. If god says gays must be killed and he will punish me with an eternity of torment if I don't go on a killing spree then I think the choice is obvious.
Understanding a suicide bomber is easy. A little pain and immorality in this life leads to redemption and paradise for you and 40 of your relatives? Easy. Understanding the moderate christian is hard. To me the moderate is sacrificing well being in the after-life for well being in this one. The only way the moderate christian (or jew or muslim) makes any sense is if he either is a closet atheist or he sincerely thinks that the god he invented in his own mind which approves of his own choices is real.
Moderate christians do not live as if god were real and jesus died for their sins.
I think I speak for everyone when I say I'm glad you have chosen a point of view that leads you to merely wax tediously on the Internet, rather than one which requires you to engage in murderous sprees. :cheers:
But here's the sticking point: not everyone believes in the same way, nor is every belief interchangable in content. For example, take Judaism. It is fundamental to Judaism that the written law of the Torah is explained and supplemented by the oral law. This is what the most hardcore believing Jews believe, and it introduces questioning and debate right into the centre of the faith. The premises of Judaism may be screwy, but a Jew who goes out and kills people who don't believe as he does is simply wrong, within the context of the faith.
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 04:10:55 PM
Moderate christians do not live as if god were real and jesus died for their sins.
This is probably true, but not for the reasons you think.
Did you ever ask yourself, just once, "what if this stuff is allegory", when reading the Bible?
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 04:22:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2012, 03:56:05 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 03:54:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2012, 03:36:27 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 03:15:04 PM
Again the "atheism is just another religion" fallacy. To keep it at the silly level "atheism is to religion what baldness is to hair color" and "atheism is a religion like non-stamp collecting is a hobby".
I think it is sad to consider that too much noise here is generated by religiously motivated trolls declaring us crazy.
Good for you, you memorized the stock responses. Like a Liturgy. It's not a religion, but inspires the same fanaticism, hatred, dogmatic thinking that the worst religion has to offer.
Fuck you Raz for merely quote mining me and thank you Raz for so amply demonstrating my point.
Was there a part of that post I left out?
you ignore the bit where I said I was going to be silly when you were criticizing me for being silly.
I removed no such part. So don't accuse me of quote mining. You are being silly, and I think most people here see it.
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 04:21:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2012, 03:53:31 PM
What else would you call a person who can't respect others because of their religion?
I respect your right to have a religion. That is intimately connected to my right not to have one. I just don't have to respect your beliefs or show you respect when you assert them as true.
Quote
The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
this is an assertion that stands and falls on it's own merits and your acceptance of these assertions affects my judgement on your character and if you deserve my respect. You get to believe this tripe and I get to mock you when you do.
No, you don't have to respect me, but when you insult people over their religion I get to call you a bigot.
Quote from: Barrister on August 08, 2012, 04:38:10 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 04:10:55 PM
Moderate christians do not live as if god were real and jesus died for their sins.
This is probably true, but not for the reasons you think.
Did you ever ask yourself, just once, "what if this stuff is allegory", when reading the Bible?
More importantly, he doesn't actually take time to read the context. Instead he takes a quote from one book about killing gays, but doesn't read the parts in the New Testament that say why people shouldn't do that. That's not fundamentalism, that's just being lazy and ignorant.
Quote from: Malthus on August 08, 2012, 04:29:30 PM
I think I speak for everyone when I say I'm glad you have chosen a point of view that leads you to merely wax tediously on the Internet, rather than one which requires you to engage in murderous sprees. :cheers:
+1 on that. Plus Beer, Bacon and Cheeseburgers are three of my favorite things.
Quote from: Malthus on August 08, 2012, 04:29:30 PM
But here's the sticking point: not everyone believes in the same way, nor is every belief interchangable in content. For example, take Judaism. It is fundamental to Judaism that the written law of the Torah is explained and supplemented by the oral law. This is what the most hardcore believing Jews believe, and it introduces questioning and debate right into the centre of the faith. The premises of Judaism may be screwy, but a Jew who goes out and kills people who don't believe as he does is simply wrong, within the context of the faith.
I agree. Not everybody believes the same way. I'd like to ask you how the jews know that the written law of the Torah is explained and supplemented? You description of Jewish law is a perfect match of natural morality as I described it in the OP. The book says kill gays, kill apostates and kill people working on the sabbath and yet your legal tradition ignores that bit. How do these scholars know that when god said kill he really meant not kill?
I think this illustrates my point from the OP and my point on fundamentalism very well. How can you if you honestly believe that the Torah is gods law that when god say kill jews who eat lobsters that you should not kill jews who eat lobsters? If you really believe this then how can you not kill jews who eat lobsters? I realize that even Siegy manages to not gun down people at Red Lobster, he might actually like prawns for all I know. Most people do inject their own morals and values when considering if surf and turf deserves the death penalty, that is the central point of the OP.
My fundamentalism point is that you can't ignore the book unless you redefine god in your own head as you like him to be or you don't believe and merely participate in your culture's activity.
Quote from: Barrister on August 08, 2012, 04:38:10 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 04:10:55 PM
Moderate christians do not live as if god were real and jesus died for their sins.
This is probably true, but not for the reasons you think.
Did you ever ask yourself, just once, "what if this stuff is allegory", when reading the Bible?
Yes. And I always immediately ask myself "how do I know if this stuff is allegory".
Why have you not told me if you thought that you BS on pregnancy was relevant?
I dont know Malthus. Viking reminded you of a Hott chick you wanted to bang as a 17 year old?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 08, 2012, 05:02:29 PM
I dont know Malthus. Viking reminded you of a Hott chick you wanted to bang as a 17 year old?
No, my way of thinking reminded him of the hott crazy woman with the crazy ideas all of us tried to agree with to try to get into her pants.
My life was different. I didn't fail to impress the hott crazy woman. I turned off the hott crazy woman throwing herself at me by trying to argue her out of her crazy ideas.
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 02:28:28 PM
Fair enough. If you don't know you don't know. I suggest we do have methodologies to answer these questions
Neuroscience vs philosophy: Taking aim at free will (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html)
may be a good place to start on the FMRI free will vs determinism. The consequences on monism vs dualism are quite profound. These experiments really did shake up my worldview.
We've alluded to these experiments already, but they don't seem to do what you think they do.
The Libet experiments didn't really advance the ball because to interpret them as having implications for free will requires making the (unwarranted) assumption that the measured brain activity corresponds to a "decision."
Buridan's ass paradox suggests that the brain must have some mechanism for quickly making choices as between arbitrary options. One plausible mechanism would be that the brain is constructed in such a way that it generates pre-decisional provisional responses, which are then reviewed by a subseqent decisional process if the decisional function determines that the matter is essentially arbitrary, then it just lets the provisional response go through.
If this account were true and we had the ability to view the brain activity pre-decisional provisional response, then one would expect that with respect to truly arbitrary decisions, one would be able to predict the ultimate result in advance with near perfect accuracy, but that accuracy might decline to the extent the decision in question is less arbitrary. The Haynes experiment is pretty surprising, not for the reasons you claim, but because the decision whether to pick a left or right button is so arbitrary one would expect 100% accuracy, but in fact Haynes was wrong almost 40% of the time. That would suggest (under the assumption that this decisional audit/review model is correct) that very little substantive decisional content is required to render the neuroscientists unable to predict what the subject will do.
QuoteI can't see how if lex parsimony makes a full soul superfluous that it also doesn't make a partial soul or marginal soul equally superfluous.
That's true.
But it doesn't reject an account that does not posit the existence of a separate mind-as-substance, but does claim that mental experience can't be reduced to physical, electro-chemical brain impulses.
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 03:00:33 PM
You just made a deepity (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepity).
Never heard of this, but based on the definition, I did the opposite.
QuoteIf you are going to insist that there is a fundamental level below the physical I'm going to have to ask you if you were honest when you claimed philosophical agnosticism on materialism and determinism, because right now it looks like you're not.
When you use the word "fundamental level" you are making no sense and you are certainly not defining your terms.
I thought I was being pretty clear - that a question raised about the subjective perception of a personal experience can't be answered by pointing to a physical mechanism.
QuoteWith regard to subjective experiences they are only truth claims of the experience, not of the truth of the content of the experience.
Exactly so.
And there is no reason to dispute the truth claims of the experience.
What is left then is to claim that despite the fact people are telling the truth about their experiences, that such people are systematically misperceiving those experiences wrongfully ascribing content to them that doesn't actually exists. That is a rather awkward claim to make for a person who also claims to such strong views that human behavior is driven by evolution - why would evolution select over time people who are prone to such enormous and catastrophic errors in mapping their experiences to reality. But even putting that aside, you are still left with the problem with refuting that the objective content of their experiences is true even where the subjective description is accurate, and you have yet to advance the criteria for doing that or the basis for the that conclusion.
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 03:12:22 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 08, 2012, 01:04:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2012, 12:12:53 PM
Oh, boy the atheist brigade is out in force today.
Hey, not all of us are militant :(
hey, you started this by declaring me militant without reading my post.
what do you mean by militant. Define your terms.
no, i called you anti-religious, or at least your stated views :P
My definition of a militant is basically like a fundi, but term fundi doesn't really work for athiest. A "i'm right and your wrong and or stupid for your belief" type of atheist view. Personally i don't care what someone believes. it's their right to belive it and not my right to diminish their belief. Beliefs only become an issue to me when someone tries to force their views onto others.
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 05:07:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 08, 2012, 05:02:29 PM
I dont know Malthus. Viking reminded you of a Hott chick you wanted to bang as a 17 year old?
No, my way of thinking reminded him of the hott crazy woman with the crazy ideas all of us tried to agree with to try to get into her pants.
My life was different. I didn't fail to impress the hott crazy woman. I turned off the hott crazy woman throwing herself at me by trying to argue her out of her crazy ideas.
I didn't fail to impress her - I failed to keep up the necessary pretense of being interested in her particular line of bull. I just couldn't do it long enough. :(
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 04:54:20 PM
I agree. Not everybody believes the same way. I'd like to ask you how the jews know that the written law of the Torah is explained and supplemented? You description of Jewish law is a perfect match of natural morality as I described it in the OP. The book says kill gays, kill apostates and kill people working on the sabbath and yet your legal tradition ignores that bit. How do these scholars know that when god said kill he really meant not kill?
I think this illustrates my point from the OP and my point on fundamentalism very well. How can you if you honestly believe that the Torah is gods law that when god say kill jews who eat lobsters that you should not kill jews who eat lobsters? If you really believe this then how can you not kill jews who eat lobsters? I realize that even Siegy manages to not gun down people at Red Lobster, he might actually like prawns for all I know. Most people do inject their own morals and values when considering if surf and turf deserves the death penalty, that is the central point of the OP.
My fundamentalism point is that you can't ignore the book unless you redefine god in your own head as you like him to be or you don't believe and merely participate in your culture's activity.
You know the oral law expands on the written law the same way you know that the written law is significant. :D
Why are books so important to you? People generally do not worship the book itself. It is merely one way in which god's mysterious will is allegedly revealed. Another way is through the oral law. This isn't some modern injection of secular morality, the oral law has been around for at least a couple of thousand years if not longer.
She obviously wasn't hot enough :P
Quote from: HVC on August 09, 2012, 09:42:36 AM
She obviously wasn't hot enough :P
You forget I was 17. Any amount of hotness was hot enough at that age. :P
But pretending an interest in Trotskyism for more than a couple of meetings, I could not do, not to save my life, let alone get laid (events of appoximately equal significance at 17 :D ).
pfft there are men who steal and squander fortunes over hot women. If she was hot enough you'd have taken it :P Hell, you foresaked your jewish culture for your wife. Obvioulsy she was hotter then annoying Trotsky woman :D
Quote from: HVC on August 09, 2012, 10:07:16 AM
pfft there are men who steal and squander fortunes over hot women. If she was hot enough you'd have taken it :P Hell, you foresaked your jewish culture for your wife. Obvioulsy she was hotter then annoying Trotsky woman :D
She was under the Vicky Mendoza Diagonal.
Quote from: HVC on August 09, 2012, 10:07:16 AM
pfft there are men who steal and squander fortunes over hot women. If she was hot enough you'd have taken it :P Hell, you foresaked your jewish culture for your wife. Obvioulsy she was hotter then annoying Trotsky woman :D
It's not that I didn't want to, it is that I couldn't. After a while, faking an interest requires actually being into it. That I couldn't do, not even for hot-to-trotsky. :P
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 03:12:22 PM
what do you mean by militant. Define your terms.
Someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Religious people are amusing.
Quote from: The Brain on August 09, 2012, 12:35:35 PM
Religious people are amusing.
Sometimes. Other times, they say stupid shit like that the earth is 6 to 9 thousands years old or that having Faith his the biggest luck of their lfie.
Here is a good recent book by the Dalai Lama. He proposes a way to lead an ethical, happy, and spiritual life beyond religion and offers a secular program of mental training for cultivating key human values.
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Religion-Ethics-Whole-ebook/dp/B005LVQZ3E/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-7gZ1bjisKMo%2FTt9DX5dKsiI%2FAAAAAAAAEME%2FmocZrPHoR8U%2Fbeyond-religion-webpage.jpg&hash=a89ed8f0e8b6c0140b1c39f4b93fcd428167827b)
Quote from: Phillip V on August 09, 2012, 02:15:32 PM
Here is a good recent book by the Dalai Lama. He proposes a way to lead an ethical, happy, and spiritual life beyond religion and offers a secular program of mental training for cultivating key human values.
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Religion-Ethics-Whole-ebook/dp/B005LVQZ3E/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-7gZ1bjisKMo%2FTt9DX5dKsiI%2FAAAAAAAAEME%2FmocZrPHoR8U%2Fbeyond-religion-webpage.jpg&hash=a89ed8f0e8b6c0140b1c39f4b93fcd428167827b)
I wonder if the fact that Viking's head is now spinning makes him more or less Hott in Malthus' view?
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 09, 2012, 12:39:27 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 09, 2012, 12:35:35 PM
Religious people are amusing.
Sometimes. Other times, they say stupid shit like that the earth is 6 to 9 thousands years old or that having Faith his the biggest luck of their lfie.
Hey! Everybody has a God sized hole in their life only God can fill!!!111
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 04:56:43 PM
Yes. And I always immediately ask myself "how do I know if this stuff is allegory".
Because ancient people usually communicated allegorically.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 09, 2012, 03:21:53 PM
I wonder if the fact that Viking's head is now spinning makes him more or less Hott in Malthus' view?
In point of fact, I have no idea if Viking is hott, should I wish to swing that way, as I've never seen his pic. ;) The only guys I'd absolutely rule out sight unseen are ones who look like circus freaks - the unusually short or tall, that sort of thing. :P
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 04:56:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 08, 2012, 04:38:10 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 04:10:55 PM
Moderate christians do not live as if god were real and jesus died for their sins.
This is probably true, but not for the reasons you think.
Did you ever ask yourself, just once, "what if this stuff is allegory", when reading the Bible?
Yes. And I always immediately ask myself "how do I know if this stuff is allegory".
What if nothing in the Torah (5 books of Moshe- First 5 books in your bible) was allegory.
What if everyhthing was literal?
How would that change your perception of the wold?
I think he'd still act the same, just arguing the opposite.
Quote from: Siege on August 09, 2012, 04:55:59 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 04:56:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 08, 2012, 04:38:10 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2012, 04:10:55 PM
Moderate christians do not live as if god were real and jesus died for their sins.
This is probably true, but not for the reasons you think.
Did you ever ask yourself, just once, "what if this stuff is allegory", when reading the Bible?
Yes. And I always immediately ask myself "how do I know if this stuff is allegory".
What if nothing in the Torah (5 books of Moshe- First 5 books in your bible) was allegory.
What if everyhthing was literal?
How would that change your perception of the wold?
Whether they are literally true, allegorically true, or completely false (or some other possibility) has little to no effect on his world view if he doesn't believe them to be at least partly true.
Quote from: Siege on August 09, 2012, 04:55:59 PM
What if nothing in the Torah (5 books of Moshe- First 5 books in your bible) was allegory.
What if everyhthing was literal?
How would that change your perception of the wold?
Then they'd be false, and could be disregarded.
Quote from: Valmy on August 09, 2012, 03:38:07 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 09, 2012, 12:39:27 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 09, 2012, 12:35:35 PM
Religious people are amusing.
Sometimes. Other times, they say stupid shit like that the earth is 6 to 9 thousands years old or that having Faith his the biggest luck of their lfie.
Hey! Everybody has a God sized hole in their life only God can fill!!!111
Maybe but God existence is impossible, what is one to do then?
Quote from: dps on August 09, 2012, 11:10:15 PM
Whether they are literally true, allegorically true, or completely false (or some other possibility) has little to no effect on his world view if he doesn't believe them to be at least partly true.
Not necessarily. If they are a foundational part of your culture, they can have a great effect on your worldview even if you consider them wholly false.
For example, it is difficult to understand much of Western culture without reference to the Bible, and this is true even if you personally are an atheist. You can't avoid your own cultural setting, which will have some form of impact.
Quote from: Malthus on August 10, 2012, 08:41:02 AM
Quote from: dps on August 09, 2012, 11:10:15 PM
Whether they are literally true, allegorically true, or completely false (or some other possibility) has little to no effect on his world view if he doesn't believe them to be at least partly true.
Not necessarily. If they are a foundational part of your culture, they can have a great effect on your worldview even if you consider them wholly false.
For example, it is difficult to understand much of Western culture without reference to the Bible, and this is true even if you personally are an atheist. You can't avoid your own cultural setting, which will have some form of impact.
Sure, but the impact of the culture you grow up in wasn't the question. The question was how his worldview would change if the Bible is objectively true. He rejects the idea that it is true, but his worldview is what it is whether he is correct or not.
Quote from: Siege on August 09, 2012, 04:55:59 PM
What if nothing in the Torah (5 books of Moshe- First 5 books in your bible) was allegory.
What if everyhthing was literal?
How would that change your perception of the wold?
Given the internal contradictions, I would have to toss out Aristotlean logic for starters.