It is predictable that you would choose only bleak, dark examples as being what you think society would be like without containing belief in a god. Do you also think a society would be that way, but if it was all Jewish or all Muslim?
Could not agree more, very well done. :tiphat:
First of all, I stated that something was false, and then I gave one example of why it is. I said I would give more if you wanted. You, on the other hand, ignored what I said, and asked a question along the very same lines that I was refuting, without giving any further reason as to why that is. You are playing back a broken record.
It is not denied that there is a tradition of Judeo-Christian morality, nor that some parts of these Judeo-Christian laws are good. What is denied is that they came from God, or that they are ultimate truths that have no need for updating.
Oh, I read the Journal of Sociobiology frequently and even have some papers on cheaters and cooperators on the lowly slime mold. I have also been through the altruism theories and relatedness. I know full well that some of our behavior is based on selection and mneme (I am spelling it correctly, Dawkin’s meme is stolen from a earlier German work) propagation and selection. However there are behaviors and mnemes like burial that have no selective advantage and altruism toward the old and infirm by archaic Homo sapiens sapiens and neanderthalis where they were more liability than value. Both of these characteristic behaviors come into existence when they probably should have been selected against.
This is true, that is why I clarified things. However, I also said that I recall examples of it happening, as well, but just that the argument didn’t need for it to be happening for it to be a sound argument.
And it was wrong that they did that whether or not their was a law explicitly saying that it was wrong. But this doesn’t seem to be synonymous with the scenario of institutionalized prayer in school.
Thanks. No pressure.
I am experiencing a certain level of predictability of my own and that is fine. There are not positive examples that come to mind. Are you able to give any? I am at a loss.
Just to connect on the Dawkins work
Keep up the good work in continuing to smear his name. You hate him so much that you can’t even use the word in English that he decided to apply to his supposedly completely derivative works.
Just because something exists in our nature doesn’t mean that it HAS to have a purpose, but it can also be that it does have an overall positive purpose, but that it also has some minor drawbacks.
Dawkins specifically talks about behaviors that may be locally applicable to a small group, but no applicable to a greater society. Left over behaviors that can no longer serve their purpose in a larger society. But who says that what that man did was instinctual or genetics based? Anecdotal examples of one particular man doing one particular thing doesn’t disprove what Dawkins is talking about at all. What would you have done if you were that man, and it wasn’t your dog?
No it doesn’t. There are many reasons why someone might want to take care of her fellow man that would be derivative of evolved human emotions. Why do you baptize your child? Yes, you care about your child and want to do what is best for him, but there is nothing evolutionary about why you choose to specifically be Catholic and so therefore baptize your child. Your emotions are working within a new environment that wasn’t previously selected for.
One can have a societal structure of functional morality just as well as those would work. So what is it about those who label themselves Muslims or Jews that you think makes them more moral, and therefore able to create a better society than one that was atheist? I think it is your prejudice towards atheists that makes it impossible for you to come up with positive examples.
It sounds like it might be evolutionarily advantageous for the ignorant masses to ave an innate longing to believe in God so that they can form a society, and so that they don’t kill each other off, as you assume they would!
Yes, I actually think we could have a more successful society now if we could get past these emergent superstitions of all kinds, and just relate to each other without the dogmas that cause prejudice and misunderstanding between groups.
This is offensive to me, and demonstrates the prejudice that I was talking about. I do not hate people who believe in God (I have family members who believe in God), but I do think that some of their beliefs are misguided (this is a mild statement and very generalized, though, because it is impossible to talk about those who believe in God in totality, because there are always the extremists who I try not to hate them but instead to understand their motivations, but, ultimately, their actions are horrible; 9/11, for example.)
Well then, there is always a first. I did request. Can you produce a positive example of the anthiestic experiment.
When a scientist reports a new concept and theory, they get naming rights. Mneme is not a German word, it is a coined term to label a concept.
Dear mmortal03:
…when you get to dictate what is moral and what is immoral you have removed morality. You spouse yourself as a “free” “intellectual” thinker and you desire to place atheism as an apex to society’s growth… yet, you refuse to go beyond your own interpretation as you refuse to accept that when humans exclude a higher Being in their lives they themselves become that omnipotent being. Just look at all of the historical accounts (don’t forget that just because man says he is doing God’s work that it is true) whenever man saw the opportunity to exploit his environment he has done do with extreme prejudice. Every modern and historical genocide has been the product of greed and hatred not of enlightenment–even when the perpetrators have attempted to claim that they are representing the Church/God.
Last paragraph has always intrigued me. The “selective” mindset of who is Automaton? On the one hand we are accused of being blind followers of God with no direction of our own but the accusing group is doing the same thing in the guise of "their own thing. " They impose their rules of “new and innovative” thought and reason as a solution to the errors of all religion. Yet fail to realise that their ideas are not really that new and some have spun out of the influnce of God believing peoples. It’s unavoidable but, once again, we are enjoying the intellectual tantrum of another, swearing up and down that he is more enlighted and “free thinking” that Catholics, Jews, Muslims or other sects. And he is going to fix our nonsensical problems because they are all based on some kind of superstition or bead counting. What a stinking , repulsive, short sighted, hypocritical disregard for history, other peoples beliefs, and the wisdom found in many of these religious faiths.
No, not tough break. It is completely wrong of you to claim that atheists all have a hatred for people with belief in God. You may not have met any, but it is still a completely false insinuation to make that all atheists are hateful people. It could just be that the only people who you have met that explicitly told you they were atheists were the ones who wanted to be militant about it. There are mean and hateful people out there of all viewpoints, but in no way does being an atheist mean that you are a hateful person.
Bad things are done all the time, and none of it is right.
You talk as if you know this place well, with your 38 posts, many of them only in this thread. I have been around here for much longer than you have, and I was a Catholic for much of my life, including most of my time here. If you had read my previous posts within this thread, it would be completely clear to you, and it would answer your question as you why I am here. I’m not expecting fun, I am simply expecting people to be considerate and to use critical thinking skills. False beliefs about
Clearly misguided and I hold a high opinion of myself? I have produced logical argument after logical argument, many of which have not been touched and instead the topic is switched, and I always make it a point to not make these kind of discussions personal. I keep things as much to the logic and the argument as I can. I don’t hold myself in any exceptional regard, I just make the most logical arguments that I can.
Give me some examples of this from my posts. I have tried to be as even-handed and not prejudge anyone.
I am not a part of any “movement”. There are certain arguments for atheism that make the most sense to me. I do not subscribe to any atheist manifesto or creed. Furthermore, I do not try to force it on anyone unless they bring up the issue with me.
When we had slavery in America, I’m sure one of the South’s arguments was that “we have tried envisioning what society would be like without slavery, but we just can’t see it working. You guys need to give us every detail of how it would work, otherwise we can only assume that it will be doom, gloom, and the end of the world.”
Atheism isn’t something unknown. There are many people who live atheistic lives already.
I don’t think anyone else is stupid. I just respond to the arguments. It is a complete exaggeration to say that all atheists would somehow think that. There have been many smart people on both sides of the spectrum. Nowhere am I claiming in this thread that anyone is stupid. That would only be divisive and destructive. It isn’t about judgment of intelligence in my posts, but judgment of the arguments.
What a completely hateful thing to say. Why would I want to move to China again? Remember that I’m the one who has been around here for much longer than you have, but you have the nerve to tell me to leave? Why does it always have to become personal when people get frustrated and can’t keep focused on the logic, the discussion, and the arguments only?
Thanks for correcting my assumption about the language it is in, as I had done a brief search regarding it online, but hadn’t found the specifics.
Good to know that you don’t hate them.
Many philosophers would differ with you on that.
I don’t care about what the etymologies of the words are. Etymologies do not define what a word means in today’s language. I don’t doubt for a second that a word in a language’s development can be of religion origin.
You are playing definition games and on semantics here. Your try (or that of those you cite) at arguing away the existence of good and evil is inconsequential. It may not fit your black and white definition of good and evil, but they can definitively be defined in a practical manner. I totally understand and can imagine in my head the proposed idea that without a supreme being, there would be no absolute reference point to arbitrate, but I think it is structuring the argument with a false premise that there can be no other practical reference points that humans can access.
Oh, but there definitely is a consequence. Even purely utilitarian stances can find areas were these are bad for certain purposes, so there most definitely are consequences, though not eternal damnation consequences.
Universally, it might be like crushing a bug under one’s foot, but, locally, I think there will be some consequences, and as society has advanced, general agreement has been reached on many issues, irrespective of religious identity. I’m not claiming that there are no gray areas there, but I’m also not buying it that the consequence of having no God is rampant chaos and lawlessness. Sure, people CAN do anything they want, but this doesn’t imply that there will not be consequences for those actions, decided upon by the voting of their peers, regarding how unreasonable their infringement is. I think there is an equilibrium that can be reached that is not anywhere near chaos, and would be the most optimal system, with the least amount of suffering.
I have read some of their writings, but it wouldn’t hurt for you to bring up the specific examples you are using from them, so that I would have a point of reference. I could sit here and name off a bunch of famous philosophers that argued against the positions of those you mentioned, and while it might be ultimately constructive for someone who went and looked up all their books, it wouldn’t be conducive to furthering the discussion at hand within the assumed time frame for a thread like this.
No you haven’t, you have just moved the reference point from something that is unknowable, to something that can be compared and debated.
I did say that it might be true that people need belief in God, or at least religion, to keep their actions in check. If that is the case, let’s create the least dependent on superstition and metaphysical one that we can to keep them satisfied.
Is that bad that then those of us who are good can do the best we can at solving the problem objectively, using evidence of the world we live in?
I can also see that these things (speaking in as general of terms as you described them) are bad, but it isn’t because people are taking morality into their own hands, it is because they themselves are doing immoral things.
Less government and no God IS better. I don’t see the necessary if and only if connection to these atrocities you speak of and these two things.
It isn’t moral ambiguity that these things are occurring because of, it is just on different moral lines that they are. I am with you that people can have bad moral compasses and do bad things. Who do you think should be responsible for practically enforcing against what you find in these examples to differ from your morality in each of these situations?
Nice that you mention Africa, because above you also mentioned genocide. You must also take a relative position on what is happening there in the name of a religion now in Darfur. You and I can both see that what is being done there is wrong, and both of us are coming from a relative position on it. Your interpretation of your religion’s moral code, and my interpretation of my non-religiously derived moral code both say it is wrong. There is no way to prove that mine is derived from something false, and yours from something true, as there is no way to prove that the God that yours supposedly comes from exists. It is just as relative in the practical sense as any other. Religious people can’t use the argument that theirs is absolute truth, because they can’t prove that their gods exist and therefore that their system of morality really came from their gods.
Thanks for the reference, I don’t have enough knowledge of the issue to make any points on it at the moment.
You are not a broken record in general, you were just being one in that specific instance. And, no, it’s not anything like the idiom you used there, because I am making new points here as we go along (in general), and have not made any specific posts that asked a question that was already answered in the same vicinity.
I don’t have a necessary problem with authority I just suggest that we should question it and not blindly adhere to it because it says to. Your thinking different than me doesn’t pain me, as I don’t doubt that you do your own thing. Bad logic pains me, though, which is why I try my best at being as logical as possible. What also pains me is people (especially children) who haven’t been allowed to freely question these things, and fall prey to such absolutes from one specific authority, when there are so many other possible alternatives. I would like to avoid guilt when there should be none, and harmful actions in the name of a particular dogma, when there should be none. These are, of course, relative concerns.
I’m not the one accusing you of that.
Why is it so important to you that certain moral principles that parallel societies who have large groups of believing people be taboo to everyone else? Yes, if the majority of people believed in some god, and they also came up with some good moral ideas and attributed them to their god, then that is what happened in history. But that doesn’t invalidate the logic behind whichever moral ideas they came up with that happened to work well, once that god doesn’t exist.
In general, I would leave people alone, so, no it isn’t some “stinking, repulsive, short sighted, hypocritical disregard for history, other people’s beliefs, and the wisdom found in many of these relgious faiths.” I have also said that there are good things to be found in many different religions. I don’t fail to realize that some people choose to be religious. That is their choice. On most issues in life, we probably wouldn’t clash. But there are certain cases where they do, and that is what the debate is all about.
Your question is rude in tone. See my other previous posts in this thread to learn about why I am here. I will not repeat them for the convenience of someone who is being rude, for no reason other than disagreement. You don’t see me getting angry about this, and you wouldn’t see me urging a Catholic to leave a forum that was predominantly atheist, especially if he had been there longer than I had.
I have no interest in playing a game of move the goal posts. There is no limit to a hypothetical utopian definition of any type of society. I would argue that there are instances in American society, where individuals (especially children) are not free to think for themselves because of dogmatic religious ideologies. Religious unilateralism is harmful to the development of people’s ability to work together in peace. There need not be a wholly atheistic society for the type of improvements that can be made to be made.