Well, I'll say it first: I concede Ron's prediction came true. (though I'm speculative about the causal factor)
from Ron in 2009:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And just so there is no doubt. I am saying that there will be serious disasters that will certainly fall on America if the decision is made on the national level to allow unions between same-sex couples to be called marriage. I believe it is an absolute certainty. Therefore I have to give this warning. If large meteorites which usually are guided away from inhabited areas, or exploded harmlessly in the upper atmosphere, are allowed to strike inhabited regions, you will know that the angels of God have been ordered to "stand down."
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ...just as a reminder, I did not say that meteorites would fall on our cities because of any sin. I said that when God's authority as Creator is directly defied by the highest government in the land, there must be consequences, including a major withdrawal of divine protection and blessing. Since we living in a shooting gallery in our solar system, this is a vital necessity, which we can scarcely afford to do without.
[ February 16, 2013, 04:15 AM: Message edited by: Anthonie ]
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
Speculative? Haha, his "Theory" is hogwash. Although it's definitely possible we lose our barrier at some point. Only it will be due to science, not some religious bullflop.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I knew it!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yo hey so I want to just stop for a second and like back up for the full view and just like, okay, I want you to really like go back and read Ron's and Occasional's posts and I want you to just for a second remember what kind of stuff it is we are looking at, okay? What it really entails. It is insanely terrifying, like, profoundly, okay, no jokes, all seriousness. Anybody who isn't gay should stop and take a second and think about what it would be like to be in a situation that gays are in, still. still. To have a big old chunk of america's religious fundamentalists — people who have had a disproportionately ridiculous presence in governance, natch — who are trying to legislate you as second-class citizens and oppress you because they consider the practice of your sexuality to be filth and sin and abomination that must be kept from children and legislating you as oppressively as they can get away with because they legitimately believe stuff like "if we let you get married, god will stop protecting us from meteors"
like just step back and imagine how absurdly terrifying this is.
like for real okay
and remember that they constantly complain that they are being oppressed by people's harsh inconsiderate words about their beliefs
oh wah
Okay.
Okay, carry on.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Anyway guys I have to say, I am really terribly sorry to all the people of Russia that I have advocated secular rationality in governance and the aggressive confrontation and challenging of anti-gay policy and attitudes in order to strangle it out over my generation and replace it with tolerant and nondiscriminatory attitudes. It is because of my callous disrespect for our Creator's teachings and the sanctity of marriage that you now have some broken windows and like, a zinc plant lost some of its roof. Sorry, we really Dovered you. Sorry. We'll fix marriage and the sabbath right away so god will stop hitting us violently with chunks of rock to show His displeasure (and love of course)
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Didn't your god promise not to do that any more after Noah? That whole rainbow thing?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What's interesting is that same-sex marriage is not legal anywhere in Russia at the moment. Maybe God missed?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sons of the fathers and communism and all that. It's so obvious!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Didn't your god promise not to do that any more after Noah? That whole rainbow thing?
According to the Bible he only promised not to destroy the earth by flood.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Maybe god is punishing Russia for the anti-gay laws it is trying to enact?
Or maybe he just wants to see *more* violence against gays. You just never know with this guy.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Dinosaurs didn't even have a legal system as far as we know, and they got obliterated by a very large meteor.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i don't think dinosaurs obeyed either the sabbath or proper marriage, so of course they had to be lovingly taught the error of their ways
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
So conversely, were the mammals given a big jump start evolutionarily speaking (ala asteroid) because they did observe the sabbath and proper marriage?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Sons of the fathers and communism and all that. It's so obvious!
SINS of the fathers.
Also, now I have Midnight Oil's 'Beds Are Burning' rattling through my head.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What's interesting is that same-sex marriage is not legal anywhere in Russia at the moment. Maybe God missed?
Well, no. The Russians don't really count, you know? As people, I mean. This was the equivalent of God stomping on America's sack lunch while shouting "this is your face, United States!". I pity you if you are blind to that, Tom.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You shut up or that breathing tube goes right back in, mister
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Oh gosh, I shouldn't laugh, I really shouldn't.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yeah it would really hurt
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Thanks god I checked this thread and realized that the Jesus-Fire-God-Shield that guides the asteroids away is dwindling because of surprise butt-sects. I'm so relieved to know this.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Yeah Russia is a fairly religious country with Orthodox Christianity having significant political pull.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Silly, the Dinosaur's were wiped out by asteroids because they promoted evolution, daring to leave their bones to be fossilized and all.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
Ahh religion, such good comic relief, if it weren't so damned annoying.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: Ahh religion, such good comic relief, if it weren't so damned annoying.
HAHAHA ha ha a-hah heh. Hm.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: Ahh religion, such good comic relief, if it weren't so damned annoying.
Ah, religious hatred. Annoying, and also not suitable for comic relief.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie: With Friday's news about the Chelyabinsk meteor event, I keep checking in to Hatrack for mass concessions about one of Ron's predictions coming true...
Maybe I missed the discussion?
Well, I'll say it first: I concede Ron's prediction came true. (though I'm speculative about the causal factor)
from Ron in 2009:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And just so there is no doubt. I am saying that there will be serious disasters that will certainly fall on America if the decision is made on the national level to allow unions between same-sex couples to be called marriage. I believe it is an absolute certainty. Therefore I have to give this warning. If large meteorites which usually are guided away from inhabited areas, or exploded harmlessly in the upper atmosphere, are allowed to strike inhabited regions, you will know that the angels of God have been ordered to "stand down."
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ...just as a reminder, I did not say that meteorites would fall on our cities because of any sin. I said that when God's authority as Creator is directly defied by the highest government in the land, there must be consequences, including a major withdrawal of divine protection and blessing. Since we living in a shooting gallery in our solar system, this is a vital necessity, which we can scarcely afford to do without.
Do we need to have the discussion about fortune tellers, generalities, selective memory, and a willingness of believers to bend predictions to suit reality?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Who would we have it with?
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Me?
I'm on the side that a meteorite striking an inhabited area as predicted in Ron's quotes was not due to angels "stand[ing] down". It was a natural phenomenon that occurred quite independent of human behavior.
Nevertheless, it was actually a prediction that did come true...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There will be an earthquake of >6.0 magnitude on the Richter scale sometime in the next five years in the Eastern hemisphere.
There, a prediction that will almost certainly come true which doesn't actually say much at all for my predictive skill, and for which I should receive no credit for making. Unless the point is to draw me out for more 'predictions'.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: There will be an earthquake of >6.0 magnitude on the Richter scale sometime in the next five years in the Eastern hemisphere.
You didn't get it right. It's <broadly applicable prediction> therefore <supernatural assurance about what this entails>
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Unless the point is to draw me out for more 'predictions'.
You're kinda close here. I was hoping Ron would jump in with his take on it after the meteor hit. I was rather surprised he hadn't already posted about it. I don't recall reading anything from him about what he thinks after he feels one of his predictions has come true. Usually his argument, when he chooses to engage, has been about what he meant versus what he wrote.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Just a small reminder, here: Ron's "prediction" in this case is not worth notice, unless we're going to call predicting a relatively common event -- meteorites striking urban areas -- something unusual. (Then again, for Ron, it might be.) Meteorites strike urban areas all the time; the front page of Digg at this very moment features a story describing an event in 1992 when one destroyed the rear end of a teenager's car. I suppose it's possible that upstate New York was particularly undefended by God in the early '90s.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
That's true, they do hit urban areas. There are even reports of meteorites killing people and/or animals in the past few centuries, I believe. (Sorry, no specific references at the moment, but I do recall reading about them.)
The Chelyabinsk meteorite was the first of which I'm aware that reported such widespread damage to an inhabited area (miles of broken glass), and that seemed to match the spirit of Ron's prediction.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Question on a side note regarding the meteorite's speed (estimated at least 33,000 mph):
For any physics-minded folks out there, I'm curious: Isn't that rather fast for a meteorite? I don't think any object falling through the atmosphere would reach such a high speed due only to earth's gravity, correct? If anything, wouldn't the Chelyabinsk meteorite have slowed down upon collision with the atmosphere? That's a pretty darn fast rock! It's amazing how powerful the sonic boom was from such a relatively small object.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
That's a bit faster than earth escape velocity. It doesn't seem wildly fast for something that is falling through the solar system.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
your typical meteoroid hits the atmosphere at somewhere around, I think, 40 to 50 thousand miles per hour.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Oh. Thanks. The solar system is a faster place than I thought!
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Yes, she is fast but never cheap or easy.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: Ahh religion, such good comic relief, if it weren't so damned annoying.
Ah, religious hatred. Annoying, and also not suitable for comic relief.
As long as you show the same respectful deference to my imaginary friends, I will always agree to show the same to yours.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: Ahh religion, such good comic relief, if it weren't so damned annoying.
Ah, religious hatred. Annoying, and also not suitable for comic relief.
As long as you show the same respectful deference to my imaginary friends, I will always agree to show the same to yours.
The beings I believe in are not imaginary to me, so I'm afraid I will have to decline your proposed arrangement. I'm perfectly willing to respect the beliefs you hold dear, regardless of whether you extend me the same courtesy.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
The beliefs I hold dear are to not impose religious belief on me, nor my kids. If you do that, you're not someone I have a problem with.
If on the other hand you support treating gays as second class citizens, etc. then I do.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Let me guess: under the prickles you're as cuddly as a teddy bear.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: The beliefs I hold dear are to not impose religious belief on me, nor my kids. If you do that, you're not someone I have a problem with.
If on the other hand you support treating gays as second class citizens, etc. then I do.
As someone who others could probably tell you believes many of the things (your posts would suggest) you believe...perhaps the most effective way of reassuring people you have no quarrel with them isn't to broadly insult them twice, and then qualify the insult with ways in which you might or might not have meant them.
In other words, you can think (aloud, even) that their various deities are imaginary, mistaken, or false without being quite such a schmuck about it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: The beliefs I hold dear are to not impose religious belief on me, nor my kids. If you do that, you're not someone I have a problem with.
If on the other hand you support treating gays as second class citizens, etc. then I do.
That's a pretty short list of beliefs you hold dear. But if that's the only one, it won't be difficult to adhere to that.
I can also handle not treating homosexuals like second class citizens. Can you handle not treating me like a second class person?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Amen!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: Ahh religion, such good comic relief, if it weren't so damned annoying.
Ah, religious hatred. Annoying, and also not suitable for comic relief.
As long as you show the same respectful deference to my imaginary friends, I will always agree to show the same to yours.
is this thread /r/atheism all the sudden
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Was it lynching or Skydaddy that got my post yanked?
Anyway, I was curious.
Mormon men get their own planet to play god in eventually. Mormon women get to vacuum the celestial carpet or something. If my whole family Mormons up and we all become gods, do we get to see each other once we're running our own planets?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Was it lynching or Skydaddy that got my post yanked?
Anyway, I was curious.
Mormon men get their own planet to play god in eventually. Mormon women get to vacuum the celestial carpet or something. If my whole family Mormons up and we all become gods, do we get to see each other once we're running our own planets?
If you weren't being an arrogant, condescending douchebag someone could explain this to you. I won't waste my time.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Was it lynching or Skydaddy that got my post yanked?
Why couldn't it be both? I would say it was because it was childish and stupid, but neither of those are against the rules. But I do hope you continue trying on the one hand, as it will hasten the arrival when you're no longer credited with being a real member and banned. On the other hand, you *do* make the team look bad just by common thinking.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Was it lynching or Skydaddy that got my post yanked?
Anyway, I was curious.
Mormon men get their own planet to play god in eventually. Mormon women get to vacuum the celestial carpet or something. If my whole family Mormons up and we all become gods, do we get to see each other once we're running our own planets?
You know what you are doing. If you want to remain on this board you will stop doing it. If you will not, well I can accommodate that too.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: The beliefs I hold dear are to not impose religious belief on me, nor my kids. If you do that, you're not someone I have a problem with.
If on the other hand you support treating gays as second class citizens, etc. then I do.
That's a pretty short list of beliefs you hold dear. But if that's the only one, it won't be difficult to adhere to that.
I can also handle not treating homosexuals like second class citizens. Can you handle not treating me like a second class person?
I don't believe I've treated you like a second class citizen. But I will still make jokes about Religion. It actually IS a choice. People are welcome to their beliefs, but that doesn't mean it can't be criticized or joked about.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I don't believe I've treated you like a second class citizen. But I will still make jokes about Religion. It actually IS a choice. People are welcome to their beliefs, but that doesn't mean it can't be criticized or joked about.
Criticism is fine. Mean-spirited joking is just rude, and against the forum rules to boot.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't believe I've treated you like a second class citizen. But I will still make jokes about Religion. It actually IS a choice. People are welcome to their beliefs, but that doesn't mean it can't be criticized or joked about.
He said 'person', not citizen, which I suspect was a carefully chosen word. Look, please don't treat us like we're idiots. It wasn't a 'joke', you knew it would be considered profoundly and personally insulting. A little while ago you had the nerve to cop to it straight off, there's no need to downplay it now.
It's one thing to bag on Ron. More importantly than being wackadoo, he makes a habit of deceptive and personally insulting posts. I believe he even pleasantly anticipated the death and eternal torment of at least a few folks around here, myself among them.
But the people you're bagging on now, they *are* the people who have a profound appreciation for the separation of church and state, of having religion be treated in the public contest of ideas as just that-another idea. I'm certain of it with respect to BlackBlade, and fairly certain of it with respect to afr (I qualify that largely because you post less, afr).
So maybe don't so much insult the people you claim not to have a problem with. There were plenty of other ways to make some of the points you were making (even the one about religions all being fundamentally untrue) while not being a schmuck.
Or, you know, continue with the approach. But when you do, don't expect to be able to backpedal from criticism for it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: The beliefs I hold dear are to not impose religious belief on me, nor my kids. If you do that, you're not someone I have a problem with.
If on the other hand you support treating gays as second class citizens, etc. then I do.
That's a pretty short list of beliefs you hold dear. But if that's the only one, it won't be difficult to adhere to that.
I can also handle not treating homosexuals like second class citizens. Can you handle not treating me like a second class person?
I don't believe I've treated you like a second class citizen. But I will still make jokes about Religion. It actually IS a choice. People are welcome to their beliefs, but that doesn't mean it can't be criticized or joked about.
If you were sitting on a train, and you looked over and saw a person wearing clothes you thought looked ridiculous. Would you say, "Hey you! Your clothes look ridiculous!"
You're well within your rights to do so. You are not well within good-manners though.
I didn't say you treated me like a second class citizen, I said you treated me like a second class *person*.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Boris
You're going to have to answer to your god for not sharing the holy spirit with a truthseeker.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
It's funny how the whole shoe fits differently when it comes to censorship, depending on whether you're on the side of the Hatrack collective or not.
The "mean-spirited" nature of a few other recent threads was far greater than that here, without any moderator intervention, deletion of posts, or general reprimands. Nothing against you BB, but it seems a bit of a double standard.
Or is the dogpile just becoming instinctive around here?
For the record, I don't agree with anyone in this thread. Just a little disturbed by the regulars lately.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're the last person to be critical of post deletion. In any event, this is a thread in which he is currently, regularly participating. Bit different from what happened in other threads. The ones we can read, anyway.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Boris
You're going to have to answer to your god for not sharing the holy spirit with a truthseeker.
You are not seeking truth. You are seeking to make yourself feel superior through radical misinterpretation and mockery of religious beliefs. You will mock every attempt I make to explain my beliefs because you do not actually want to know what I believe. You believe you are superior to me because I believe in the existence of a supreme being, and my reasons for doing so have no bearing in your treatment of that belief. You are a bigot, a fool, and a hypocrite. A bigot because you do not accept that people who believe in god are just as deserving of basic human respect and dignity. A fool because you do not seek truth but only seek to mock and malign. A hypocrite because you claim to hate religion for the very attributes that you put on display in your statements about religion. Until you are at a point where me talking to you about my beliefs will result in anything other than disrespect from you, I have no doubt that God would look upon our interaction and say, "Yeah...that guy wasn't willing to listen."
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Boris -
A bigot. Perhaps, although I support all rights for religious people, and even treat them with respect. Their beliefs, on the other hand? Not so much. And I'll admit my eyes reflexively roll whenever I hear them try to defend religious belief as rational.
A hypocrite. I dislike religion because pretty much every one revolves around telling other people how they should act. The Mormons are a little better at this, but they sure seem intent on telling secular society who and who should not be issued civil marriage rights.
And people keep on parroting that I'm trying to make myself feel superior. These people, I think, are missing the joke. I hate myself more then I could ever hate anyone else.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
For the record my first post which was: "Ahh religion, such good comic relief, if it weren't so damned annoying."
I guess that may be 'rude' to you if you're someone who is devoutly religious, and has devoted your life to something I will never believe in.
But I never said anything that isn't true. You can hate me because I laugh at your religion, that doesn't bother me.
You can laugh at me because I have a comic book collection, and think it's pretty awesome. On that level, to me, they are the same.
My roommate who considers himself to be a Christian watched the Mormon South Park and was laughing hysterically. When I brought up that his Jesus is really no different than Joseph Smith - except for +-2000 years, he got really pissed. I found that hilarious.
You can laugh at me because I don't kill any animals, bugs, or anything that's alive - even in my house, I catch and release. People laugh all the time - it's funny to some. I don't find it rude that people laugh because they don't think the same way I do.
Religion annoys me. Not necessarily ALL religious people, but Religion in general. I hear about it daily. I see about new laws pushed because someone's religion disagrees with something. I see laws passed for the same reason. I see politicians that get so caught up in their religion they forget everyone doesn't think that way. And they forget about the separation of church and state.
An example of my own beliefs: I don't believe it's right for me to kill any animal, bug, or otherwise, but I don't believe we need a law to make sure people don't go hunting, or that no food is created from Animals. And no - I'm not a vegan. I just personally don't kill things.
I just wish ALL (yes ALL) religious people could do the same. They aren't going to be forced to get "Gay married" so why should they force their beliefs that it's wrong on others? Not by TELLING them it's wrong, but by actually trying to legislate it, by either not allowing it, or trying to make it illegal. Some have gone as far as to try and make being gay illegal (again.)
Forcing your beliefs on others is where the issue is wrong. You can TELL me your beliefs, I can TELL you your beliefs are wrong. But when it comes to actually writing LAWS about those beliefs, there is a problem.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
All laws are written based on beliefs, Thesifer.
Are you advocating some sort of non-government anarchistic society of free individuals?
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
I'm not sure what your (Thesifer and Tittles) end game is. Unless you are arguing with MattP who said it is against the forum rules and you think that your actions aren't such.
Everyone else has pretty much said, you have every right to be rude, but frankly it's rude. You could find a better way to express yourself. Of course you don't have to and you can just remain rude.
Your argument is that people shouldn't be offended I guess because you aren't offended when people laugh at your non-killing of animals belief.
I guess then you shouldn't get annoyed when religious people try to pass laws. I'm pretty sure people have the right to try to get whatever law they want passed. If it's unconstitutional then it won't pass or will get struck down by courts, but they can still try.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Yeah because not hurting people's tender little feelings and not controlling their actions through legislation are completely the same thing.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Everyone else has pretty much said, you have every right to be rude, but frankly it's rude. You could find a better way to express yourself. Of course you don't have to and you can just remain rude.
But the critique for being rude is also rude. Wouldn't it be more advantageous to respond to a rude poster as you would an unreasonable child? With compassion and reason? Rather than finger pointing and namecalling?
Or you could just let Rakeesh have at them for awhile.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Yeah because not hurting people's tender little feelings and not controlling their actions through legislation are completely the same thing.
OK let me redo my post then:
I'm not sure what your (Thesifer and Tittles) end game is.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Everyone else has pretty much said, you have every right to be rude, but frankly it's rude. You could find a better way to express yourself. Of course you don't have to and you can just remain rude.
But the critique for being rude is also rude. Wouldn't it be more advantageous to respond to a rude poster as you would an unreasonable child? With compassion and reason? Rather than finger pointing and namecalling?
Or you could just let Rakeesh have at them for awhile.
Um... yes?
For the record, I did think the lambasting of you was rather over-reactive and has lasted a surprising long time with some posters. To the point of being somewhat awkward.
Then again, when I saw that TomDavidson asked someone to provide a source for a claim they made I wanted to say something snarky, so I guess I hold on to things too.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: I guess that may be 'rude' to you if you're someone who is devoutly religious, and has devoted your life to something I will never believe in.
I am not a theist, and I thought it was rude.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: For the record my first post which was: "Ahh religion, such good comic relief, if it weren't so damned annoying."
I guess that may be 'rude' to you if you're someone who is devoutly religious, and has devoted your life to something I will never believe in.
And the man on the subway felt strongly enough about his selection of clothes to actually put them on that day.
Would it be respectful for me to say "It'd be cute that you deny the existence of the being that made you if it weren't so stupid?"
No, it's rude, condescending, and if you really felt that my believing as you do would help me lead a happier life, then it's immoral for you to get in your own messages' way.
quote:But I never said anything that isn't true. You can hate me because I laugh at your religion, that doesn't bother me.
I'm sure you think it's true that the man's clothes look ridiculous. So what? Does something being true cause you to involuntarily state that truth? And why would I want to hate you? I want to have good conversations with you about myriad topics. After all, we both comes to this place.
Perhaps you felt your statement would be applauded and supported by many of the atheists here, alternately perhaps you were hoping to achieve some level of schadenfreude as the theists all raged and screamed. Whatever the explanation, you and I both know you shouldn't have.
So lets stop with the analyzing, and just say "You know what, sorry." and "I'll say, eh, no problem." Lets talk about something else now.
Or if you'd like to talk about what honest reasons believers have for opposing gay marriage, I'm perfectly happy to have that conversation with you.
But I'm not going to say anything of importance to you if I feel like you aren't going to value it.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Yeah because not hurting people's tender little feelings and not controlling their actions through legislation are completely the same thing.
So the government has never forced religious groups to abandon things that are part of their religious belief before? I'm sure you're a firm believer in separating the church from the state, but I wonder how strong your belief in the idea that the state should be separated from the church is...That is to say, that the state should have no say whatsoever in the practice of religious belief. Because there are many Atheist organizations out there already that are trying very hard to make it illegal to perform religious acts on public lands under the guise of separating church and state.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan:
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: I guess that may be 'rude' to you if you're someone who is devoutly religious, and has devoted your life to something I will never believe in.
I am not a theist, and I thought it was rude.
Yep, same.
Because it was patently rude.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's funny you'd say that, stiles-exactly who has dragged it on here?
-----
Anyway, Thesifer, much of what you say I agree with and had you offered that instead of a one-off cheap shot directed toward all religious people generally, I would be on your side right now. But you didn't.
------
Man, Boris, if there's one thing that is exasperating and a sign of entitlement it's a theist complaining about the encroachment and oppression of atheists and agnostics. You're badly mischaraterizing so much of what goes on. Few 'atheist organizations' (could you even name one?) attempt to disallow religious observance on public land. Many more, however, work to restrict government-sponsored religious observance on public property, as they should.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
Actually I was attacking nothing. I was stating my opinion. I'm sorry it offended you. But you can believe it was a direct attack on you, if that makes you feel better. I honestly don't think there is a single valid reason for opposing homosexuals. So if you want to have that debate, that's fine. But it won't be with me.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: Man, Boris, if there's one thing that is exasperating and a sign of entitlement it's a theist complaining about the encroachment and oppression of atheists and agnostics.
The argument that I must put my religious beliefs aside in regards to what I view as valid legislation is an encroachment on the freedom of religion and my right to free speech and expression. You are essentially demanding that religious individuals be of two minds about the future of this nation, something you do not seem willing to burden yourself with. I have every right to attempt to legislate what I view as a matter of morality. I am granted that right by the constitution.
Further, the Freedom From Religion Foundation makes a habit of getting itself involved in lawsuits against private organizations that make use of public lands. I recall a story involving a privately operated baseball team being sued by the FFRF for having prayers before games with other privately operated teams that were played in public parks. I can't currently find any information on it, but I'll continue looking. And yes, they fight against public funds being used for religious displays on public property, but they also spend a lot of time and money going after privately funded displays on public land. (They don't make a habit of displaying their court *losses* on their website. Like the suit against a Spartanburg, SC school that allows students to receive school credit for released time religious studies that were performed at a local church.)
But let's then take an extreme case. Human Sacrifice. Do you believe that this should remain illegal in the US?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The argument that I must put my religious beliefs aside in regards to what I view as valid legislation is an encroachment on the freedom of religion and my right to free speech and expression. You are essentially demanding that religious individuals be of two minds about the future of this nation, something you do not seem willing to burden yourself with. I have every right to attempt to legislate what I view as a matter of morality. I am granted that right by the constitution.
I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Who is 'demanding' you be unable to bring your religious motivations into your political decision-making, exactly? No. This is the entitlement I'm talking about. Someone says 'you shouldn't try and make laws for others based on your religious views' and you hear a demand that you be unable to do so.
Ok, now you've offered an example. *One* example in a country that is still populated by a tiny minority of agnostics and atheists. Would you care to demonstrate something besides individual cases to support your broad theme of being under attack? Because Boris, if you want to go tit for tat on private organizations lobbying or suing with regards to the separation of church and state, I think you know which side will have to blush first.
quote:But let's then take an extreme case. Human Sacrifice. Do you believe that this should remain illegal in the US?
Again I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Should the killing of a human being for anything other than self defense or defense of other people, or reasonable fear of such, be illegal? Yes, obviously. There is the question of suicide, but that's not human sacrifice. I'm not even sure why you think this is a gotcha question.
But since you brought it up, is there a reason why various Christian sects that revere the story of Abraham and Isaac and the test of faith involving not only human sacrifice, but of a father sacrificing his son, shouldn't be regarded as shamefully wrong-headed for revering that sto?ry and that degree of faith
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
I apologize for offending anyone, I dislike religion. But I don't necessarily dislike the people that support the religions.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: I apologize for offending anyone, I dislike religion. But I don't necessarily dislike the people that support the religions.
Well, it's a start. But hopefully one day you will learn to see why all these people you don't dislike support religion.
I've learned to appreciate atheism precisely because of the good atheists in my life.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I recall a story involving a privately operated baseball team being sued by the FFRF for having prayers before games with other privately operated teams that were played in public parks.
I suspect you are mis-recalling this story. FRFF sometimes makes bad calls, but that would be a particularly egregious one for them and as much as they are unlikely to be talking up their failures, there are a number of Christian legal organizations like ACLJ and Liberty Counsel that crow loudly about them.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: I apologize for offending anyone, I dislike religion. But I don't necessarily dislike the people that support the religions.
Well, it's a start. But hopefully one day you will learn to see why all these people you don't dislike support religion.
I've learned to appreciate atheism precisely because of the good atheists in my life.
BB- To be perfectly honest, I think religion is fascinating. Regardless of my personal beliefs on it's truthfulness.
I would venture (Although I haven't measured) that I know more about specific religions that many people that follow that specific religion.
I don't claim to be an expert of any religion. I grew up in a "religious" household that went to church on Sundays, and moved away from there as I got older. I was christened a Methodist, and Baptised as a Southern Baptist.
Regardless of the fact that I think religious belief is funny to me, I never said it discounted the person, or that a person was "stupid" for believing in a particular religion. I believe that was inferred.
I've been publicly attacked for being atheist, It just goes with the territory. I don't generally hide it, but at work I don't blast it loudly either. I'd like to keep my job.
When I was in the military we would have discussions about religion often, everyone would always tell me "When you grow up, you'll come to your senses and see." (I'm 31.)
How many times a day does Scientology get laughed at? I would say, probably often- by many religious people. And non-religious, and former Scientologists, but they are a recognized LEGAL religion. But I don't see many non-scientologists rushing to their defense.
Muslims are demonized and called terrorists (I have vehemently defended them, and at times had it blow back in my face when young Muslims come around and claim the Qu'ran does tell them to attack the infidels. I just assume those specific Muslims are not very bright.) But I also don't see many Christians publicly rushing to their defense.
As I mentioned earlier South Park had an entire show devoted to Mormons, and a Broadway play. During the show they flashed a message on the bottom (We're not making this up.) And again, people laughed. I don't really see anyone outside of the Mormon religion demonizing Trey and Matt.
I'm not telling anyone not to believe their religion. But I'm also not walking on eggshells to make sure I never offend someone. There are many many many parts about nearly every religion that make no logical sense. But again, if someone wants to believe that, that's fine by me. It doesn't make them stupid, but in my opinion - misguided. I'm not out to change anyone's belief, regardless of how much easier it would be if everyone thought like me.
But I also (obviously) give my opinions on things.
Boris - So, it's ok for your religion to publicly fight to change things so laws can be on the books because you find they are morally right, yet it's wrong for atheists to do the same thing on the other side? I'm confused.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote: [QUOTE]But let's then take an extreme case. Human Sacrifice. Do you believe that this should remain illegal in the US?
Again I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Should the killing of a human being for anything other than self defense or defense of other people, or reasonable fear of such, be illegal? Yes, obviously. There is the question of suicide, but that's not human sacrifice. I'm not even sure why you think this is a gotcha question.
Because, quite simply, Human sacrifice was, at one point, a central tenant of a religion known as Santeria. Santeria is basically Mayan religion that was Catholicized by replacing the names of Mayan Gods with Catholic Saints to allow its followers to continue worshiping without fear of retribution from the Spanish shortly after their conquests.
If we were to truly respect the separation of Church and State, we should not be determining what practitioners of *any* religion do among themselves. If a practitioner of Santeria wanted to be a human sacrifice in one of their rituals of their own free will, then the government should have no legal recourse to charge anyone with homicide, due to those involved being well within their rights to practice such rituals. Instead, the government enforced the popular belief that the life of people is more important than the rituals of a single tiny religion and therefor outlawed human sacrifice as a religious ritual. As a result, Santeria worshipers were forced to make drastic changes to their beliefs to replace human sacrifice with animal sacrifice. Which, by the way, the government still heavily regulates.
So you do, in fact, support government intervention in religious activity. I bring up Santeria and human sacrifice because it is an extreme example of a majority, non-religious belief outweighing a minority religious belief. I could have brought up what happened to the LDS church's practice of Polygamy during the late 19th century, but that was, of course, a religiously motivated majority opinion outweighing a minority religious practice. If you believe so firmly in the idea that religious organizations shouldn't influence the government, you be equally firm about preventing the government from interfering in religious practice. You aren't.
quote: Who is 'demanding' you be unable to bring your religious motivations into your political decision-making, exactly?
Oh good lord...do you even *use* the Internet? No one has ever said to me, "You shouldn't use your religious beliefs in your political decisions." They have said, "You *can't* use your religious beliefs in your political decisions. Separation of church and state!" This is a bastardization of constitutional principle used to completely ignore opinion and dismiss religious individuals' beliefs. And it happens *all the time*.
Let's also not forget the incredibly bigoted meme comparing religion to a penis, which suggests that religious people should just shut their damn mouths about their beliefs when they're in public. Yes. Let's all make sure we censor ourselves about what we believe so that we don't offend some poor atheist who is tired of being burdened by the harsh load of having someone talk about religion around them.
quote: I've been publicly attacked for being atheist, It just goes with the territory.
Try growing up Mormon in North Carolina. Atheists are just godless heathens there. Mormons are the devil incarnate.
But that doesn't mean I make fun of evangelicals. I roll my eyes a little at the crap their preachers say about me and my beliefs, but I refuse to make fun of what they believe. Because on balance, most religious organizations do significantly more good than evil. Humanitarian aid that leaves the US does so primarily through Faith Based Organizations like the Catholic Church and other Evangelical organizations. A massive percentage of the aid given to homeless people in the US does so through the work of religious organizations. You know how many atheist humanitarian aid groups I've been able to find (Atheist...as in charity created by, run by, and taking donations from atheists. Not Secular, like the Red Cross and other similar groups)? 1. And even its name is a dig against religion. "Earth's Atheist Resistance To Holy Wars And Religious Devastation" or EARTHWARD. And it's a tiny freaking organization, let me tell you.
quote: Boris - So, it's ok for your religion to publicly fight to change things so laws can be on the books because you find they are morally right, yet it's wrong for atheists to do the same thing on the other side? I'm confused.
And exactly what moral beliefs exist that have grown out of atheism alone? Other than the idea that people should shut their mouths about their religious beliefs?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Try growing up Mormon in North Carolina. Atheists are just godless heathens there. Mormons are the devil incarnate.
Bull. There's a significant Mormon subculture in the Carolinas. And I suggest that until you've been an atheist in the South, you not try to guess how well it's received.
quote:Not Secular, like the Red Cross.
*giggle* Seriously, though, why on Earth would any charity be "atheist" instead of "secular?" Atheism isn't a philosophy or a religion. It's a lack of belief. By default, any secular charity would do just fine. The only scenario in which an exclusively "atheist" charity would need to exist would be to stand as a counter-example to non-atheist charities, a position that's inherently reactionary (and distracting from any charitable mission) and no doubt part of the reason that it'd not be overwhelmingly popular. Even with atheists, who generally have more important things to care about than whether or not they're doing good works specifically for the Glory of Nobody In Particular.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: ... If you believe so firmly in the idea that religious organizations shouldn't influence the government, you be equally firm about preventing the government from interfering in religious practice. You aren't.
You should probably explain why you believe that the first should naturally lead to the second, because I'm not following this relatively important step in your argument.
Edit to add: I mean, I can see why in the American context one might think that was what was intended by your founders. But your example is Mayan, so I'm assuming you're arguing as a part of a logical argument that should apply everywhere.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The only scenario in which an exclusively "atheist" charity would need to exist would be to stand as a counter-example to non-atheist charities
On a related note, check out who is the largest giving community on kiva.org... http://www.kiva.org/community Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: ... If you believe so firmly in the idea that religious organizations shouldn't influence the government, you be equally firm about preventing the government from interfering in religious practice. You aren't.
You should probably explain why you believe that the first should naturally lead to the second, because I'm not following this relatively important step in your argument.
Edit to add: I mean, I can see why in the American context one might think that was what was intended by your founders. But your example is Mayan, so I'm assuming you're arguing as a part of a logical argument that should apply everywhere.
Santeria is a religion that is still practiced. It dates back to the Mayan empire. The American idea of church/state separation is founded on the ideal that no church should enforce its religious requirements and sacraments on those who don't follow that religion. Conversely, it is the ideal that the government should have no power to dictate what individuals can believe or worship. If you believe that the government should not be influenced by religion, but that religion should be influenced by government, you promote an unequal application of law and advocate a potentially serious abuse of democratic power.
quote: Bull. There's a significant Mormon subculture in the Carolinas. And I suggest that until you've been an atheist in the South, you not try to guess how well it's received. /QUOTE]
There is a single town with a population of about 10,000 that is 90% Mormon in eastern NC. I lived in Western NC where the ward boundaries included three *counties* and the stake went from the Tennessee border to about 50 miles west of Greensboro. And just to knock your second point out, I was made fun of by the *atheists* in my school, who got little to no flack about their beliefs from anyone, as well as the baptists and whatever other evangelicals there were. So I'm pretty familiar with how Atheism is viewed there.
[QUOTE] Atheism isn't a philosophy or a religion. It's a lack of belief.
That old chestnut. A lack of belief in something is still belief in something. It's just a different something.
quote: On a related note, check out who is the largest giving community on kiva.org... http://www.kiva.org/community
Heh. The charity that gives you back every dollar you give after a few months...Also, it looks like the dollars per donor level is higher for the Kiva Christians group...hmmm...Interesting. Also important to point out that Kiva's loans reach people through...Oh right, lots of religious organizations.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:That old chestnut. A lack of belief in something is still belief in something. It's just a different something.
No, he's right. Atheism isn't a philosophy or a religion. Saying it is is like saying that "Off" is a television channel.
quote:If you believe so firmly in the idea that religious organizations shouldn't influence the government, you be equally firm about preventing the government from interfering in religious practice
does not follow, does not compute.
quote:if there's one thing that is exasperating and a sign of entitlement it's a theist complaining about the encroachment and oppression of atheists and agnostics.
Yup. It's a level beyond first world problems. The 'oppression' of atheists, hm? I wonder what they would think if they got to experience how atheists are treated throughout most of the country. It'd certainly be an eye-opener about why so many people eyeroll at these complaints.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Boris,
I wasn't expecting that to be the thrust of your gotcha, so you've surprised me at least. Not with a compelling argument, though, and here's why: suicide is also illegal, and not because we were concerned with the religious practices of any religion. There is no gotcha here, because I actually do believe in government intervention in quite a lot of institutions when they break the laws our representative government has decided upon. Even-especially, in fact-religious institutions, because there are few things more toxic to society than the notion that God grants one the right to break the law.
I'm not sure what I or anyone has said that would've led you to conclude this was a very good skewer with which to argue, Boris.
quote:Oh good lord...do you even *use* the Internet? No one has ever said to me, "You shouldn't use your religious beliefs in your political decisions." They have said, "You *can't* use your religious beliefs in your political decisions. Separation of church and state!" This is a bastardization of constitutional principle used to completely ignore opinion and dismiss religious individuals' beliefs. And it happens *all the time*.
Oh, I see. I didn't realize that we were using the old 'I hear it on the Internet, therefore it's a powerful cultural and political force' argument. But aside from that absurd notion, let me ask you a question: is it your contention that when people on the Internet say that, what they are actually suggesting is that it should somehow (by what mechanism?) be against the law for an individual to utilize religious principles in voting or politicking?
quote:Let's also not forget the incredibly bigoted meme comparing religion to a penis, which suggests that religious people should just shut their damn mouths about their beliefs when they're in public. Yes. Let's all make sure we censor ourselves about what we believe so that we don't offend some poor atheist who is tired of being burdened by the harsh load of having someone talk about religion around them.
Ok, here's the thing. Even if I credited this 'movement' of pushy sensitive atheists with as much popularity as you do-a major case you're not at all making-my question is this: so what? It's clearly not working on you. It's fair game, in free speech terms, for one group to insist-through speech and expression-that another should concede defeat and leave the discussion, or change their minds, else be found somehow wanting. Not very effective, but in terms of the freedom of speech, well within the limits if not in touch with the spirit.
Let me put this another way: Easter is almost here. When it arrives, could you whine some more about the mean old atheists keeping religious people quiet about their religion? Don't even get me started about Christmas. This is what I'm talking about when I'm talking about entitlement-you are perceiving Internet trash talk (and having spoken to you before, Boris, you're no saint in the matter either) with a powerful national force while completely ignoring, as MattP pointed out, the larger truth of the situation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That old chestnut. A lack of belief in something is still belief in something. It's just a different something.
*sigh* No, it's not. To respond to a proposition of any kind with, "I don't believe there is enough evidence to conclude that that is true," *is not* of itself a belief in anything except what was stated. That's not to say one couldn't look at a particular thing and then find evidence that the claims are contradictory, fabricated, etc., but that's a different question. Please note that you haven't made the argument that explains why atheism is a belief, you've only stated that it is one.
Others have expressed it well. You're insisting that atheism ought to be held as a motivating factor for human behavior, that somehow it has an agenda like any ideology which makes claims about things. It doesn't, because it isn't. An atheist might be a humanist, a communist, a Republican, an anarchist, or so on and so forth, but you cannot claim that a lack of belief in a deity has somehow driven them to do so.
Overall it comes as no surprise to me that you have a poor understanding at best of what it actually means to be an atheist, so it's therefore also not surprising that you're seeing atheist boogeyman wherever you look. You cannot even accurately describe what atheism is-why on earth should anyone take you seriously when you talk about what it does?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Like seriously if atheism is a belief, than we are all possessed of an infinite quantity of beliefs. If I am unconvinced that there are teacups in orbit around saturn, that is already a belief and a philosophy analogous to believing in God. Or infinite numbers of other things. Everyone is a practicing nonbeliever of the tens of thousands of gods they don't believe in. It's just ..
no.
i'm literally going to drink to purge the idea from my head now thanks
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The charity that gives you back every dollar you give after a few months
No, that's not how it works. You put money in and it's in for good.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
Government has very very limited action related to 'stopping' religious practice. They don't force you to accept gays, they don't even force you to marry them, hell they even make it illegal for them to marry - because Religion wanted it.
A few practices are illegal, across the board. Not killing people. The reason isn't because "Oh, we want to stop you from practicing your religion - so no Ritual Sacrifice!" it's because historically, logically, and every other lly - Ritual Sacrifice is generally a group of willing idiots, and one poor sod that got picked to die, for whatever reason the religion made up.
Native Americans still smoke peyote legally, while it's illegal for others. And I'm sure if some religion actually had a truly religious claim to marijuana that would probably be legal for them as well. Yet no religion has had that as a practice for thousands of years.
I honestly can't think of one example of "Government Overreach INTO Religion." - But I can think of it going the other way.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Like seriously if atheism is a belief, than we are all possessed of an infinite quantity of beliefs. If I am unconvinced that there are teacups in orbit around saturn, that is already a belief and a philosophy analogous to believing in God. Or infinite numbers of other things. Everyone is a practicing nonbeliever of the tens of thousands of gods they don't believe in. It's just ..
no.
i'm literally going to drink to purge the idea from my head now thanks
Atheism IS a belief. Aren't you thinking of agnosticism?
Most of the atheists I know, as opposed to the agnostics, spend more time proselytizing than any Christian. It's an active belief that God doesn't exist, and they're recruiting. Just like a few atheists on this thread.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You and Boris should go make out in a small room together. You're both wrong, but you're very compatible.
--------
Look, I'll elaborate: it is no more an active belief that the Christian God does not exist than it is an active belief that Zeus does not exist. To suggest otherwise is to argue, as samp has pointed out, that the default value of any truth claim is true. Do all zebras turn purple the instant they are not being observed? OF COURSE THEY DO! And if you doubt that, you are an active apurplist!
(Note: your definition of "agnostic" is wrong and, well, not very useful.)
More importantly: being an apurplist doesn't tell you anything about a person beyond the fact that they're skeptical about spontaneously color-changing zebras. An Apurplist Club doesn't make any sense, because any given apurplist might enjoy something quite different and share quite different values from any other apurplist. And any charity that does good work without requiring that people loudly declare their belief in some form of Purplism is just fine with accepting any apurplist money; there's no point to setting up an explicitly apurplist charity, since the rapid color-changing of zebras has nothing to do with whether or not there are needy people to be helped, and people who wish to help them.
Yeah, there are atheists out there who are evangelical about atheism -- but they're not spreading an atheist belief; they're asking people to challenge their existing religious beliefs. There's a difference.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Like seriously if atheism is a belief, than we are all possessed of an infinite quantity of beliefs. If I am unconvinced that there are teacups in orbit around saturn, that is already a belief and a philosophy analogous to believing in God. Or infinite numbers of other things. Everyone is a practicing nonbeliever of the tens of thousands of gods they don't believe in. It's just ..
no.
i'm literally going to drink to purge the idea from my head now thanks
Atheism IS a belief. Aren't you thinking of agnosticism?
Most of the atheists I know, as opposed to the agnostics, spend more time proselytizing than any Christian. It's an active belief that God doesn't exist, and they're recruiting. Just like a few atheists on this thread.
So you're an atheist, because you actively believe that Odin and Zeus do not exist?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's certainly possible to hold to something that many people call atheism as an actual, authentic belief-the positive certainty that there are no deities. Some people certainly do just that, but that goes well beyond what's required for atheism-the minimum amount of things one must think, so to speak, to be considered an atheist.
As others have pointed out repeatedly, all that's necessary to be an atheist is to not believe in any religious, well, beliefs. To hear the proposition that there is a god or gods and shake one's head and answer 'I see no reason to believe that proposition is true'.
If it is a belief, it's only a belief that there is no reason to believe the proposition is true-which is not at all what is usually meant by 'belief'.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Two things: one, it's been repeated more than once the claim that atheism is a belief. I'd like to hear the actual reasoning behind the claim, instead of the claim itself, so we can actually examine the question. It requires an atheist to claim that it is certain there are no deities, but not all atheists claim there are no deities. Basic level reasoning here.
Second, exactly what are we calling proselytizing? Generally it means going out into the world and addressing people who haven't asked to hear an attempt at persuasion. Door to door missionary work sort of thing. Other times it means less direct attempts at persuasion and more indirect efforts, such as by doing good works or some such. But is it proselytizing if when someone asks why you don't go to church, you tell them? Or if someone asks why you think gays should be allowed to marry, you tell them? Or when someone decries a Chik-Fil-A boycott, you respond with your support? So on and so forth.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's certainly possible to hold to something that many people call atheism as an actual, authentic belief-the positive certainty that there are no deities. Some people certainly do just that, but that goes well beyond what's required for atheism-the minimum amount of things one must think, so to speak, to be considered an atheist.
As others have pointed out repeatedly, all that's necessary to be an atheist is to not believe in any religious, well, beliefs. To hear the proposition that there is a god or gods and shake one's head and answer 'I see no reason to believe that proposition is true'.
If it is a belief, it's only a belief that there is no reason to believe the proposition is true-which is not at all what is usually meant by 'belief'.
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
So, yes, under one definition you could say that atheism is a lack of belief. Under another definition you could say that it IS a belief that there is no divinity.
So, atheism CAN BE a belief. I don't know why we're arguing semantics, other than the fact that a few normally agreeable people seem to have bees in their bonnets.
Again, I've known many atheists who are far more fervent in their belief than a lot of theists I know.
I won't even get into the agnosticism argument. It's just as pointless.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Second, exactly what are we calling proselytizing? Generally it means going out into the world and addressing people who haven't asked to hear an attempt at persuasion. Door to door missionary work sort of thing. Other times it means less direct attempts at persuasion and more indirect efforts, such as by doing good works or some such. But is it proselytizing if when someone asks why you don't go to church, you tell them? Or if someone asks why you think gays should be allowed to marry, you tell them? Or when someone decries a Chik-Fil-A boycott, you respond with your support? So on and so forth.
Proselytism (pron.: /ˈprɒsɨlaɪtɨzəm/) is the act of attempting to convert people to another religion or opinion.
I've known many atheists that spend a considerable amount of time trying to have reasoned arguments with theists in an attempt to dissuade them from believing in God. Often times, especially on Hatrack, it devolves into ridicule. Either way, there are a lot of ways to try to "convert people to another religion OR OPINION".
Though I'd say -- in the case of religious matters -- it rarely works.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: To suggest otherwise is to argue, as samp has pointed out, that the default value of any truth claim is true
And you are saying that the default point of any falsehood claim is *false*. In reality the default point of any belief is actually "Dunno." So you are actually following the *belief* that God does not exist. And yes, I do actually actively believe that the Norse Gods don't exist. I also actively believe that Egyptian and Roman gods don't exist.
Everything that you think is true *or false* is a belief. That belief can be supported by objective evidence or it can be disproven by objective evidence. The existence of deity can be neither supported by objective evidence nor disproven by objective evidence. Looking at this lack of evidence and saying, "There is no god" is just as logically fallacious as saying, "There must be a god." The only logical and rational conclusion you can come to is "Not enough evidence to support or disprove" At which point we use our own subjective and loosely related objective evidence to come to a conclusion that fits our other beliefs and observations. I have my own experiences and personally obtained evidence that has convinced me that there is a supreme being. You have your own experience that have convinced you that there isn't.
The reason you aren't willing to accept that Atheism is a belief akin to religion is that doing so robs you of a rhetorical advantage. "I do not have any religious beliefs, therefor it is not immoral, unkind, rude, or whatever for me to force my ideals and beliefs on others."
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You and Boris should go make out in a small room together. You're both wrong, but you're very compatible.
--------
Look, I'll elaborate: it is no more an active belief that the Christian God does not exist than it is an active belief that Zeus does not exist. To suggest otherwise is to argue, as samp has pointed out, that the default value of any truth claim is true. Do all zebras turn purple the instant they are not being observed? OF COURSE THEY DO! And if you doubt that, you are an active apurplist!
(Note: your definition of "agnostic" is wrong and, well, not very useful.)
More importantly: being an apurplist doesn't tell you anything about a person beyond the fact that they're skeptical about spontaneously color-changing zebras. An Apurplist Club doesn't make any sense, because any given apurplist might enjoy something quite different and share quite different values from any other apurplist. And any charity that does good work without requiring that people loudly declare their belief in some form of Purplism is just fine with accepting any apurplist money; there's no point to setting up an explicitly apurplist charity, since the rapid color-changing of zebras has nothing to do with whether or not there are needy people to be helped, and people who wish to help them.
Yeah, there are atheists out there who are evangelical about atheism -- but they're not spreading an atheist belief; they're asking people to challenge their existing religious beliefs. There's a difference.
For the most part, I think you're right, Tom. But, and you do touch on this a little, I think that evangelical atheists are a pretty significant group. And the problem with that, as I see it, is that they're still defining themselves around God.
Not just in terms of being evangelical about it, though there is that.
A disturbing example, though, is the prevalence of moral relativism among atheists. I think, to some extent, this springs out of the fact that most atheists were theist at one time. If morality came from god, and they decided god didn't exist, then morality must not exist either. They toss the entire tradition out, and they don't do a good job of retaining the good parts or replacing them with something better.
That's a huge problem. Frankly, I'd much prefer a moral religious society to an immoral atheist one. And that's coming from an atheist.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Under another definition you could say that it IS a belief that there is no divinity.
You know, that's fine. That puts this kind of positive-belief atheism on the same level as, say, the belief that there are no headphones made of solid uranium.
But when people talk about atheism being a belief, they generally are doing so to draw a false equivalence between atheism and some form of religion. And I think there's a huge gulf between believing that no headphones are made of solid uranium and believing that, say, this particular book is full of God's instructions for mankind. In other words, not believing that any god exists is categorically different from believing in, say, the Jewish faith; the former does not come with any attendant beliefs, while the latter does.
--------
quote:A disturbing example, though, is the prevalence of moral relativism among atheists.
Well, duh. You would expect atheists to be smarter than most people, and smart people recognize that all morality is relative.
Seriously, though, Dan, we've previously established that you are a moral relativist. What disturbs you isn't moral relativism, but reactionary liberalism: the idea that, because no obvious rationale can be offered for a given tradition, that tradition should be discarded as useless or even harmful. You live a life with an axis best described as "Robot vs. Hippie," and come down firmly on the "Robot" side of that equation. *grin*
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:A disturbing example, though, is the prevalence of moral relativism among atheists.
Well, duh. You would expect atheists to be smarter than most people, and smart people recognize that all morality is relative.
Smart people apparently don't recognize logical inconsistencies, though. Gotcha.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it would very, very difficult to make the case that moral relativism is logically inconsistent, as no philosopher has been successfully able to do so without positing the existence of a higher power.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Asserting that morality is relative is a moral statement, Tom. It's either true, or it isn't.
If it's false, okay, that's fine, that one moral statement is false but there could be other ones that are true. Objective morality is still on the table.
If it's true, then it's an objective truth about morality. So then it's false. So... see above.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Asserting that morality is relative is a moral statement, Tom.
No, it's not. It's a truth statement. Asserting that morality being relative is a bad thing is a moral statement.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
People keep talking about all of these evangelical atheists (and Boris, you criticize *others* of seeking false rhetorical advantage, ha). Well, I've spent most of my life as either an atheist or an agnostic, and you know what? I rarely meet any others.
This is another sign of the privileged position other people and I have been talking about: for other beliefs, it's widely accepted-especially here-that 'people on the Internet' and small but noisy groups of a larger whole aren't at all, especially in the former case, an accurate measure of the whole.
Not for atheists, though. It was seriously put forward that talk on the Internet heard by one person, or in-person anecdotal experience of another, is enough to speak authoritatively about the whole. When if I were to say that Christians are a bunch of evolution-denying homophobes, I'd hear a lot of valid criticism, even though it's just about certain that just on the basis of numbers we've all heard more examples of that that 'evangelical atheism'.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: You would expect atheists to be smarter than most people
Why would we expect this, exactly? Because being Atheist means you're smart? Or because there are a lot of smart Atheists? What are you using as the rational for your determination of what is "smart"? Are you an Atheist because you believe that Atheists are smart and you want to be perceived as intelligent? Don't you think there might be a lot of really unintelligent people who would be atheists because "Smart people are atheists"?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For one thing, it's a proven fact that atheists are better at detecting sarcasm.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Asserting that morality is relative is a moral statement, Tom.
No, it's not. It's a truth statement. Asserting that morality being relative is a bad thing is a moral statement.
So objective truth exists, but not objective truth about morality?
I don't understand how truth can exist without morality. Morality is about how to think and how to live. There are right ways to find the truth of a matter, and there are wrong ways.
At a basic level, pretty much everybody has some moral knowledge, even people who claim morality doesn't exist.
Do you mean that morality is contextual? Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: For one thing, it's a proven fact that atheists are better at detecting sarcasm.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So objective truth exists, but not objective truth about morality?
That's correct. Because it is true that, for example, the sun is a ball of plasma. It is arguably good or bad that the sun is a ball of plasma, but that determination can only be made by an individual.
quote:I don't understand how truth can exist without morality. Morality is about how to think and how to live. There are right ways to find the truth of a matter, and there are wrong ways.
The truth of something is not always the value of something; more importantly, an assertion of the ultimate value of something cannot always be given a truth value. This is the mistake Ayn Rand makes when arguing for Objectivism, and which underlies ultimately all forms of utilitarianism: the idea that "good" can be objectively measured and consequently maximized.
I'm just enough of a utilitarian to believe that it can, for a given definition of "good." But that definition will inevitably wind up being unrecognizable to someone actually intending to use the word to mean something like what we mean by it in casual conversation. You have to do what Rand does: assign values to things and assert that your reason for doing so is better than someone else's, based on axiomatic premises. Rand, for example, makes the argument that free will is more important than pretty much everything else; the ability to freely exert one's will is in her worldview one of the highest virtues. But not everyone will agree with her, and there is no real way to call them wrong (or right) without first agreeing to accept or reject the axioms used to reach that conclusion (assuming that a truly logical argument has been built, which we're going to provisionally grant in this case even though it's not really true.)
-----------
quote:Do you mean that morality is contextual?
Not only is it contextual, but those contexts are internal and individual. An individual can choose to accept a social model of morality, but there is no requirement that he do so.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
Morality seems to come from within, and culture, more than anything, if I were to offer my opinion.
There are things that we can argue that would be "Wrong" regardless of what culture we are in, but that doesn't mean that culture sees it as wrong or even morally objectionable.
"Honor Killings" are 'morally acceptable' to some, and preferable to ruining the family name. Although you can argue, rightly, that it's morally wrong to take a life.
There are many other examples of 'different morals' but it can be stated with certainty that morals are not pushed from any all-knowing entity. And there's no way to set a baseline for what is actually moral or immoral.
If that were the case people that did things that you find morally objectionable would also find those things to be morally objectionable, although they might still do them willingly.
There are a few christian homosexuals that might agree they are living in sin, and morally objectionable. But if that weren't something coming from within, there would not be other homosexuals that do not have a moral objection to being gay - as an example.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Do you mean that morality is contextual?
Not only is it contextual, but those contexts are internal and individual. An individual can choose to accept a social model of morality, but there is no requirement that he do so.
You were talking about things like "ultimate values" and stuff in the excised text, and I'm not real interested in going down that road right now. Let's focus here for now.
Even if you state that something is contextual, internal, and individual, that doesn't really get you off the hook from objectivity.
Like I said before, objective morality goes all the way down to the very, very basic. Whatever contextual, individual, internal goal a person has, there are still good and bad ways to accomplish that goal. A method that doesn't do a good job of achieving that goal is objectively worse than one that does, right?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Whatever contextual, individual, internal goal a person has, there are still good and bad ways to accomplish that goal.
Are you defining "good" here as "effective" or "efficient?" If so, I think you're probably going to want to read up on utilitarianism, since you're making the very classic utilitarian argument.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: I honestly don't think there is a single valid reason for opposing homosexuals. So if you want to have that debate, that's fine. But it won't be with me.
And I can think of many reasons for supporting homosexuals quite a few of which are based on my religion.
Please stop lumping us all together.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I'm not sure that you can assert any sane individual would support total moral relativism.
This has to be contextualized. There is moral objectivity, at least in regard to a human society or community. Any acts that act toward destruction of a community would tend to be deemed wrong. Like the wanton murder of one's neighbors.
You can argue that all morality is relative and that it is perfectly fine to murder your neighbor, as long as you don't get caught. But that's sure as heck a relativistic claim that wouldn't get held up by any reasonable member of society (other than yourself). Objectively (to everyone else), the act is wrong.
Pure moral relativism is something that only whack-a-doos and serial killers ascribe to.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Moral relativism means cold-blooded murder is OK?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Moral relativism means cold-blooded murder is OK?
Actual relativism? Sure. Why wouldn't it be?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Whatever contextual, individual, internal goal a person has, there are still good and bad ways to accomplish that goal.
Are you defining "good" here as "effective" or "efficient?" If so, I think you're probably going to want to read up on utilitarianism, since you're making the very classic utilitarian argument.
I think that what I said stands without getting into the weeds of definitions.
If you want to create a spacecraft, there are good ways to try to do it, and there are bad ways to try to do it.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: I honestly don't think there is a single valid reason for opposing homosexuals. So if you want to have that debate, that's fine. But it won't be with me.
And I can think of many reasons for supporting homosexuals quite a few of which are based on my religion.
Please stop lumping us all together.
The statement you quoted was by no means a "lump" in any form of the word. I was speaking specifically to one person, and giving a response.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There is moral objectivity, at least in regard to a human society or community.
Heh. That's like saying, "What do you mean, there's no such thing as unicorns? There are unicorns, at least in regard to rhinoceroses and mutant, single-horned goats!"
--------
quote:If you want to create a spacecraft, there are good ways to try to do it, and there are bad ways to try to do it.
If the cheapest, most efficient way to build a spacecraft involved whipping unpaid slaves to do the labor, would that be a "good way?" What if you needed to make a huge number of cheap spacecraft to save humanity from an incoming asteroid?
When you're discussing morality and attempting to link it to a given process or mechanism, it is vitally important to know what "good" means.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If you want to create a spacecraft, there are good ways to try to do it, and there are bad ways to try to do it.
If the cheapest, most efficient way to build a spacecraft involved whipping unpaid slaves to do the labor, would that be a "good way?" What if you needed to make a huge number of cheap spacecraft to save humanity from an incoming asteroid?
No, that would be a worse method than building spaceships using free trade, creativity, and mutual benefit.
I don't just mean abstractly less moral in some nebulous way. I mean it would be the wrong way to do it. It would be worse.
There's a reason modern western society is wealthier, healthier, and more advanced and also has less slaves than 150 years ago. It's not just a random coincidence. Living well has consequences. Good ideas have consequences.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: When you're discussing morality and attempting to link it to a given process or mechanism, it is vitally important to know what "good" means.
I still don't understand what you mean. I think I am using words in their standard meanings. Would it help you if I posted the dictionary's definition of good?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:There is moral objectivity, at least in regard to a human society or community.
Heh. That's like saying, "What do you mean, there's no such thing as unicorns? There are unicorns, at least in regard to rhinoceroses and mutant, single-horned goats!"
Is your point that morality wouldn't exist without humans?
Certainly. Morality is about how to make decisions. Take away decision-making entities and morality is meaningless.
So?
Heat is generated from energy. If there were no energy, there would be no heat. Does that mean heat is not an objective phenomenon?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Doesn't seem a very good comparison at all, Dan. We can measure heat. We don't know it's an 'objective phenomenon' because of its connection to energy, but because it can be felt and measured and repeated.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Morality is about how to make decisions.
No, it's not. Or, rather, not everything that is about how to make decisions is about morality. If your friend lives down the road to your left and you want to visit your friend, it is not morally superior to turn left. It is simply more effective. You're confusing effectiveness with rightness, which is what I was pointing out with the rocket example: what if we could build more and better rockets with slave labor? Would it be right to do so, even if we got more and better rockets out of the process?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
All moral decisions may be subjective, but they are objective to a frame of reference. Actions can either be positive or negative with reference to a frame. For humans, these are often:
- Relation to self - Relation to family - Relation to community - Relation to special interest - Relation to country - Relation to species - Relation to other species - Relation to the ecosystem / planet
I guess you might argue that you also have to infer that "positive" or "negative" also need to be specified -- whether benefit is short / long term, causal relationships to other groups or entities, etc.
It's rather an obtuse topic.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:All moral decisions may be subjective, but they are objective to a frame of reference.
This observation is the core of moral relativism.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Like seriously if atheism is a belief, than we are all possessed of an infinite quantity of beliefs. If I am unconvinced that there are teacups in orbit around saturn, that is already a belief and a philosophy analogous to believing in God. Or infinite numbers of other things. Everyone is a practicing nonbeliever of the tens of thousands of gods they don't believe in. It's just ..
no.
i'm literally going to drink to purge the idea from my head now thanks
Atheism IS a belief. Aren't you thinking of agnosticism?
Most of the atheists I know, as opposed to the agnostics, spend more time proselytizing than any Christian. It's an active belief that God doesn't exist, and they're recruiting. Just like a few atheists on this thread.
You could make the case that a narrow subgroup of strong atheism is something of a belief structure. Atheism itself is as much not a belief structure as agnosticism.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: The reason you aren't willing to accept that Atheism is a belief akin to religion is that doing so robs you of a rhetorical advantage. "I do not have any religious beliefs, therefor it is not immoral, unkind, rude, or whatever for me to force my ideals and beliefs on others."
No, the reason why we are willing to accept that atheism is not a belief akin to religion is because we understand what belief structures are, and we understand what the definition of atheism actually is. Pretty much everything I've said on that matter still holds. You can DISLIKE that its separate categorization from religion certainly equips some arguments against religion, but it's easy to note, Boris, that pretty much nobody is making the X therefore Y argument you quote here, even though it is easy for you to proscribe the overarching testament on behalf of atheists because you feel persecuted by them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: If you want to create a spacecraft, there are good ways to try to do it, and there are bad ways to try to do it.
When you say good or bad are you speaking about good or bad in a moral sense, or do you mean effective versus ineffective. Does the effectiveness of a spacecraft-building method apply to whether it is good or bad in a moral sense.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
“Your petitioners are atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.
An atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it, and enjoy it.
An atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.
He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.
He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.
He believes that we are our brother's keepers and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”
You are aware that the group American Atheists doesn't actually represent all atheism, right? *laugh* Please tell me you knew that already. And you're aware, moreover, that the statement in question was provided in a specific court case and could very easily have been demonstrated false even at the time it was presented? And tell me that you realize that the list of "positive beliefs" given in your list is overwhelmingly a list of the only possible alternatives to divine intervention -- like "an atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said." While that's an oversimplification -- perhaps there's a third option -- it's not exactly a great example of a positive belief.
Anyway, to put your fears at ease, I have no doubt that there are lots of atheists out there -- many of them surely libertarians -- who do not want to see poverty eradicated, disease conquered, war eliminated, and brothers kept. But by far the majority of atheists do, just like the majority of humans do. Which is kind of the point. When you can substitute the phrase "almost all humans" for the word "atheists," and the only statement you can no longer make is "almost all humans do not believe in the existence of gods" (and similar ones, like "almost all humans do not believe in the power of prayer"), you realize pretty quickly that "atheism" isn't exactly a philosophy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So at what point are we allowed to stop taking you seriously on this subject, Aros? First it was 'my experience with atheists' permits sweeping generalizations. From Boris it was 'people on the Internet'. Now at least I suppose we're a step up from that sort of analysis-an actual statement made by an organization of atheists. That at least lacks the deplorable weakness of arguing from anecdote or Internet experience.
But if as Tom says, one of us were to select a single group of theists and then claim that 'there, see, theists believe this', you would have a host of prompt and relevant objections. Do you really not see the exact dang parallel to what you're doing?
But in any event, you *still* haven't actually made the claim for why stating that one doesn't believe there is reason to think something is true is an actual belief, such as belief in a deity is a belief.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I guess atheists don't believe anything.
There is no governing body for atheists, nor is there a canon of principles or doctrine. There are a handful of substantial atheist organizations, but they have no official status. Some atheists with similar goals and philosophies have come together to form these organizations, but they do not speak for all atheists.
It's impossible to know much about the beliefs of a person who identifies themselves as atheist from merely that identification. You know they don't believe in a deity and, by extension, they don't believe that a deity can influence the physical world or its inhabitants.
Perhaps it would help to point out that Christianity doesn't follow from theism - that there are a great variety of possible belief systems that accomodate a belief in a god or gods alone. Can you see how the lack of a such a belief is similarly unconstraining to the variety of beliefs that may be held by an individual?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom: You need to remove the comma from your URL.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Reads "*American* atheists" Uh, a pretty simple reason that group doesn't represent me Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I saw this on a Facebook post:
You do not need a religious belief to be moral.
You need empathy.
Without Empathy, the most religious person, following their religion, will do terribly immoral things.
With empathy you get sympathy, compassion, and a morality that all the Holy Books on Earth can not create.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The central tenet of most religions (and the one we tend to struggle with the most) is to love your neighbor as yourself. That is pretty much the essence of empathy, isn't it?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
- I never said that "all atheists" had a belief system of atheism. I only said that some do. It got labelled "evangelical atheism" after the fact. - I showed that Wikipedia agrees with me. - I pointed to a group that testified to the Supreme Court with a statement of beliefs.
Do all atheists have a system of belief? No. Do some of them? Yes. Anecdotally, are some of them more prone to promoting their views than many theists? Yes.
Do you guys not read what you're arguing against?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Christianity ties meaningful worship of God together with empathy in the two great commandments--loving God with all your heart and loving your neighbor as yourself.
I know those often get uncoupled in practice, but suffice it to say that those two commandments are at the very core of Christian belief.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I pointed to a group that testified to the Supreme Court with a statement of beliefs.
Can you tell me what distinguishes them as atheist beliefs as opposed to, say, human beliefs?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Atheism IS a belief. Aren't you thinking of agnosticism?
--
So, yes, under one definition you could say that atheism is a lack of belief. Under another definition you could say that it IS a belief that there is no divinity.
--
. . . . I guess atheists don't believe anything.
We're reading you sending mixed messages. If overall your message is 'for some atheists, it's a belief' as opposed to 'atheism is a beef', then no problem.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Good way to pick and choose, Rakeesh. You're really good at fact-finding. Here's one for you:
quote:I pointed to a group that testified to the Supreme Court with a statement of beliefs.
Can you tell me what distinguishes them as atheist beliefs as opposed to, say, human beliefs?
Yes. They self-identified themselves as atheists. You can say those are humanist beliefs all you like, and you'd be right. But they were a public group making an official statement of belief to Congress. I'd imagine that makes them atheists. And this holds up to the Wikipedia definition.
But you can use whatever definitions you like. At this point, this argument is truly a pointless exercise. Heck, it probably is anyway.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If multiple people see the same thing and come to the same conclusion, and the conclusion isn't what you intended, maybe just maybe the communication glitch was on your end.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Rakeesh,
Okay. Find another person that couldn't see the sarcasm in "....I guess atheists don't believe anything."
You could start a club! Talk about girls and your least favorite teachers. With membership cards and everything.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: If you want to create a spacecraft, there are good ways to try to do it, and there are bad ways to try to do it.
When you say good or bad are you speaking about good or bad in a moral sense, or do you mean effective versus ineffective. Does the effectiveness of a spacecraft-building method apply to whether it is good or bad in a moral sense.
...Yes?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Morality is about how to make decisions.
No, it's not. Or, rather, not everything that is about how to make decisions is about morality. If your friend lives down the road to your left and you want to visit your friend, it is not morally superior to turn left. It is simply more effective. You're confusing effectiveness with rightness, which is what I was pointing out with the rocket example: what if we could build more and better rockets with slave labor? Would it be right to do so, even if we got more and better rockets out of the process?
Taking away the context of the actual world we live in is sort of pointless. This is like saying "physics is subjective," and then when challenged saying "What if the laws of physics operated differently somewhere? Then it'd be subjective, right?"
It's a non sequitur. That's not the best way we know how make lots of effective spacecraft.
Are you familiar with the hypothetical wherein the individual motivation someone has is "Maximize the number of squirrels," and how that would play out?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:At this point, this argument is truly a pointless exercise.
Well, yeah. Just admit you're wrong and we can all feel like something's been accomplished.
------
quote:Are you familiar with the hypothetical wherein the individual motivation someone has is "Maximize the number of squirrels," and how that would play out?
I sure am! And you, my friend, should consequently be aware of the concept of simplified thought experiments.
Seriously, though, Dan, the problem here is that you seem to be unable to draw a distinction between "most efficient" and "most good." This is going to make any ethical conversation with you difficult, since pretty much all anyone can do until you see that distinction is engage you in increasingly ridiculous Socratic dialogues.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:At this point, this argument is truly a pointless exercise.
Well, yeah. Just admit you're wrong and we can all feel like something's been accomplished.
So, you feel that my argument that "some atheists have a formed and developed atheist belief system" is incorrect?
Is that because: - You don't feel they're atheists? - You don't feel that their purported belief system can be called "atheist"? - Whatever they call themselves, they aren't representative of a significant population of atheists? - You don't like them? You were double-crossed one time and live your life plotting revenge? - You've abandoned your senses and are living in a shack in Montana, waiting for the government to come and "take our guns"?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Are you familiar with the hypothetical wherein the individual motivation someone has is "Maximize the number of squirrels," and how that would play out?
I sure am! And you, my friend, should consequently be aware of the concept of simplified thought experiments.
Cool, where did you run into it? I didn't think it was very widely known, but I'm not really sure.
It's not simplified to remove important, contradictory details the way your suggestion that slave labor is actually good is, though. It's simplified to make its point very clear.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Seriously, though, Dan, the problem here is that you seem to be unable to draw a distinction between "most efficient" and "most good." This is going to make any ethical conversation with you difficult, since pretty much all anyone can do until you see that distinction is engage you in increasingly ridiculous Socratic dialogues.
It's not just "efficient," though. There are many definitions of "efficient" that would be totally immoral. But yeah, I do think that which is rational and practical (and is actually efficient) is what is moral.
Here, let's get back to something else that you said:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Morality is about how to make decisions.
No, it's not. Or, rather, not everything that is about how to make decisions is about morality. If your friend lives down the road to your left and you want to visit your friend, it is not morally superior to turn left.
Yeah it is. Just on a very small, somewhat irrelevant scale.
If you turn right, you made a mistake. No big deal, and I agree most people wouldn't notice the moral distinction there. But let's look at it a little more.
If you notice it and don't do it anymore, you've improved. If you keep doing it, though, then you're not learning from your mistake. You're living irrationally, and irresponsibly. At least in this one tiny sphere of your life.
At this point it might be a little easier to see that this is a bad way of living, and to pass moral judgment. There's still a long way from this level of bad living to one of the big moral failures, like being a murderer, of course.
But those moral failures come about because of countless smaller ones. Someone living rationally and solving their problems consistently isn't going to suddenly murder someone.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So, you feel that my argument that "some atheists have a formed and developed atheist belief system" is incorrect?
Rather, that it's irrelevant. Because what you were previously claiming was that atheism was itself a belief system, not that some atheists have a belief system that is compatible with a lack of belief in any gods. The first is more rhetorically useful, but is untrue. The second is accurate, but also entirely irrelevant.
------------
quote:But yeah, I do think that which is rational and practical (and is actually efficient) is what is moral.
Then let me go back to suggesting that you read up on utilitarianism. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But yeah, I do think that which is rational and practical (and is actually efficient) is what is moral.
Then let me go back to suggesting that you read up on utilitarianism.
I have. What I said there is actually much closer to Objectivism, in terms of mainstream moral philosophy. It's not too surprising if you don't recognize that, though.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I consider Objectivism to be just another form of utilitarianism, albeit one that's not quite as rational.
But, seriously, let's go back to the "maximize squirrels" bit for a second to discuss why all morality has to be subjective: because even if your goal is to maximize happiness (as just an example of one moral goal a utilitarian might set), you still have to decide whether your goal is to reduce sadness, maximize individual happiness, increase the average level of happiness, or increase the sum total of happiness (by some metric). Each of these results might look very different. Heck, Objectivism might be said to be utilitarianism with a core goal of "maximize personal self-determination."
But there is no way to establish which of these goals is best, because the very definition of "best" depends on choosing a goal ahead of time. There's no objective indicator you can use -- despite Rand's insistence otherwise, mind -- to determine which of the very many things you might want humanity to accomplish is in fact the ultimate thing.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:So, you feel that my argument that "some atheists have a formed and developed atheist belief system" is incorrect?
Rather, that it's irrelevant. Because what you were previously claiming was that atheism was itself a belief system, not that some atheists have a belief system that is compatible with a lack of belief in any gods. The first is more rhetorically useful, but is untrue. The second is accurate, but also entirely irrelevant.
Okay, too many posts and too many posters got out of hand. In my first post, I certainly claimed that. Long ago (perhaps back in the 1970s), however, I qualified that atheism was only elevated to a belief system by SOME (not all) atheists. Again, this was stated in the basic definition in Wikipedia . . . as there are differing practical definitions of the term atheism.
If we want to get all lawyer-y the Merriam Webster definitions of the word "atheism" are as follows: a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
And the Merriam Webster Student Dictionary definition: - The belief that there is no God
Doctrine and belief. You may get definition a. But I think I get at least half-credit.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:But, seriously, let's go back to the "maximize squirrels" bit for a second to discuss why all morality has to be subjective
The real question is who would win in a fight?
1000 squirrels or a horse?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I consider Objectivism to be just another form of utilitarianism, albeit one that's not quite as rational.
But, seriously, let's go back to the "maximize squirrels" bit for a second to discuss why all morality has to be subjective: because even if your goal is to maximize happiness (as just an example of one moral goal a utilitarian might set), you still have to decide whether your goal is to reduce sadness, maximize individual happiness, increase the average level of happiness, or increase the sum total of happiness (by some metric). Each of these results might look very different. Heck, Objectivism might be said to be utilitarianism with a core goal of "maximize personal self-determination."
But there is no way to establish which of these goals is best, because the very definition of "best" depends on choosing a goal ahead of time. There's no objective indicator you can use -- despite Rand's insistence otherwise, mind -- to determine which of the very many things you might want humanity to accomplish is in fact the ultimate thing.
I don't understand why you need an "ultimate" thing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Because if we're going to talk about objective morality, it means that -- again, just as an example -- one of those happiness outcomes is objectively better than the other three. You don't just get to pick your favorite one and work towards it; one of those has to be better.
So imagine a world where everyone has been surgically modified so that sadness is impossible, then kept in small nutrient-rich vats that keep them safe from all harm. Imagine a world where only six people live, surrounded by robots that fill their lives with luxury and endless novelty. Imagine a world where there is no inequality and no squalor; people have all their needs met and occasionally get a bit of luxury on a regular schedule designed to minimize jealousy, but very few if any people are perfectly happy with their lot. Imagine a world of six hundred billion people, all of whom are locked in nutrient vats and spend most of their time controlling robots that do labor while their waking brain hallucinates the equivalent of modern TV shows.
These are all possible products of a objective morality that has chosen one form of "maximize happiness" as its goal. Rand rails against all of these, herself, when she posits self-actualization as being superior to all of them. But of course there are many potential dystopias you can build out of self-actualization, too.
Morality depends entirely on context, and context changes from person to person and society to society.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I believe in objective morality, but the idea that there's any moral significance to minor everyday mistakes is ludicrous.
It is sometimes morally important to develop skills and attentiveness, but that's a different thing, although your reactions to specific small mistakes can help or harm that process.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I believe in objective morality, but the idea that there's any moral significance to minor everyday mistakes is ludicrous.
Mistakes in general are not bad, they're learning experiences.
What I was trying to say has some moral significance is ignoring and repeating one's mistakes and living irresponsibly.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
What if it's a mistake at a game or something of equally little significance? You always bid too aggressively at bridge, and you ignore the mistake and repeat it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: What if it's a mistake at a game or something of equally little significance? You always bid too aggressively at bridge, and you ignore the mistake and repeat it.
If it's truly isolated to that one thing, then it's a ridiculously minor flaw. But... still a flaw, isn't it? What if you bet too aggressively at poker, and ignore the mistake? Or in the stock market?
What does it mean to have a flaw, or to be wrong about something?
Also... I think most of the time if one persists in a flaw or wrong idea, and resists improvement consistently, this is not an isolated phenomenon. What do you think?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
It seems to me like we do think very differently about different areas of life, depending on how much we care about them.
My fencing footwork isn't very good, for example, and I often lose because of that. But I don't fix the problem because I mostly do it for exercise and the work wouldn't be worth it, given how relatively unimportant the game is for me.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Because if we're going to talk about objective morality, it means that -- again, just as an example -- one of those happiness outcomes is objectively better than the other three. You don't just get to pick your favorite one and work towards it; one of those has to be better.
I don't understand why this should be a counterargument for an objective morality. Why can't I just say "Yep, one of those three is the best one"? I do observe that in fact happiness as such is not the only human value, but that's not very relevant here.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I think we're assigning a little too much gravity to objective morality. Is a religious system going to dictate the happiest job? The best potential spouse? Even with an objective morality, there are still a million ways to satisfy a requirement. And there are always tradeoffs based on personal taste.
Is there a best car in Mario Kart?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why can't I just say "Yep, one of those three is the best one"?
You certainly can. You can even assert that knowing which is the best one is impossible, but that a best one has to exist or else the universe wouldn't. Of course, anyone else can disagree with you. So all you've done at that point is re-invent religion.
--------
quote:And there are always tradeoffs based on personal taste.
What do you think moral relativism is, Aros?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:And there are always tradeoffs based on personal taste.
What do you think moral relativism is, Aros?
When my relatives tell me to go to church?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: It seems to me like we do think very differently about different areas of life, depending on how much we care about them.
My fencing footwork isn't very good, for example, and I often lose because of that. But I don't fix the problem because I mostly do it for exercise and the work wouldn't be worth it, given how relatively unimportant the game is for me.
Is your goal winning at fencing, or getting exercise?
In the left/right turn example, if you're driving around for fun, then turning right isn't a problem or a mistake at all.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:You certainly can. You can even assert that knowing which is the best one is impossible, but that a best one has to exist or else the universe wouldn't.
I could, but I won't. I'm just going to say that one of them is the best; currently I don't know which one, but I'm confident it's possible to find out; and that the existence of the universe has nothing to do with it. How about you not putting words in my mouth?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That's fine, too. It's a completely unprovable assertion, and as long as we're okay with making those, you can. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It's just as unprovable as your assertion that morality is completely context-dependent, or whatever the phrase was.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
From one perspective, sure. But, again, you've just reinvented religion by declaring that there is something unknowably superior about a given option; you've just posited an ineffable moral arbiter. If you're okay with doing that, I won't tell you not to.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: If you want to create a spacecraft, there are good ways to try to do it, and there are bad ways to try to do it.
When you say good or bad are you speaking about good or bad in a moral sense, or do you mean effective versus ineffective. Does the effectiveness of a spacecraft-building method apply to whether it is good or bad in a moral sense.
...Yes?
Ok, so ... you use utilitarian morality, then. so what do you do if tomorrow you are presented with incontrovertible, total evidence that free trade produces terrible spacecraft, and prisoner slave labor produces excellent and cheap spacecraft? I assume at some point your position will short-circuit back from your (apparently non self-recognized) consequentialism to some kind of deontological ethic.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:unknowably superior
I did not say it was unknowably superior. I said it was currently unknown. I also asserted that it will eventually be known, which rather seems to rule out "unknowable", no?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: Is your goal winning at fencing, or getting exercise?
In the left/right turn example, if you're driving around for fun, then turning right isn't a problem or a mistake at all.
The notion that an action is done with a particular goal in mind is a useful idealization, but that's not really how we think. When I'm driving I might be interested in getting home, but there are also many other goals that are more important to me (just not salient at that time).
In the fencing case, I would say my goal is to win as much as I can without spending more time on the sport than I'd like.
quote:From one perspective, sure. But, again, you've just reinvented religion by declaring that there is something unknowably superior about a given option; you've just posited an ineffable moral arbiter.
Why does the existence of an objective answer to moral questions have to involve an "arbiter"?
There's an objective fact about what beliefs are rational, given the evidence you've seen. Does that mean there has to be an ineffable belief arbiter?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Because moral questions involve asking "should" and "why," not "how" and "what." Dan has asserted that "why" should be answered "most efficiently how," but that is itself a "should" question. It's turtles all the way down.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:unknowably superior
I did not say it was unknowably superior. I said it was currently unknown. I also asserted that it will eventually be known, which rather seems to rule out "unknowable", no?
I'm not sure I get this. It seems to me that you've basically said the equivalent of "When the Second Coming happens, everyone will know that Christianity is true."
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Because moral questions involve asking "should" and "why," not "how" and "what." Dan has asserted that "why" should be answered "most efficiently how," but that is itself a "should" question. It's turtles all the way down.
But very often there are facts about what you "should" believe, which are somewhat independent of whether your belief is actually true.
For example, suppose there is actually a God. Nonetheless, you (the atheist) are following the evidence you've seen to the best of your ability, and thus believing what you "should." It's not your fault you were wrong, since you responded appropriately to the available data.
Do you disagree with that?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Dan has asserted that "why" should be answered "most efficiently how," but that is itself a "should" question. It's turtles all the way down.
One thing to notice is that it's a different "should" question, one that can be phrased in different terms without the "should." Dan could just say that the word "why" means "most efficiently how."
Also, there are definitely theories of morality--very plausible ones--according to which "should" questions bottom out in questions about "what is." I recommend Michael Smith's The Moral Problem.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
To give you an idea of Smith's view:
quote:As a solution to the problem, Smith proposes a form of "moral rationalism," the heart of which is an analysis of moral rightness in terms of what we would want ourselves to do if we were fully rational. Smith's rationalism is derived from two theses: first, the moral rightness of an action is a matter of its being called for by reasons; second, there is a reason for an agent to do something just in case, if the agent were fully rational, she would want herself to do it.
(The definition of "rational" he uses doesn't involve the notion "should." Fully rational just means possessing as many mental faculties and as much information as you possibly could.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Do you disagree with that?
Possibly. In a scenario in which God exists and is the supreme moral arbiter, whether I believe there is sufficient evidence for God may or may not morally justify my lack of belief; if He thinks it's immoral to disbelieve even in the absence of evidence, it's immoral.
-----------
quote:One thing to notice is that it's a different "should" question, one that can be phrased in different terms without the "should." Dan could just say that the word "why" means "most efficiently how."
That doesn't actually remove the "should." It just turns a premise into an axiom.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Possibly. In a scenario in which God exists and is the supreme moral arbiter, whether I believe there is sufficient evidence for God may or may not morally justify my lack of belief; if He thinks it's immoral to disbelieve even in the absence of evidence, it's immoral.
My question wasn't about moral justification, it was about epistemic justification.
My point was that there are other notions of "should" aside from the moral one--like the notion of which beliefs are fitting given your evidence (which is distinct from the notion of which beliefs are true). And you're already committed to living in accord with these non-moral notions of "should."
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:That doesn't actually remove the "should." It just turns a premise into an axiom.
You'll have to elaborate a bit, I'm not getting this.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's not a theory of morality. That's the total absence of a theory of morality.
Step 1) Assume there is a God. Step 2) Let God decide.
edit:
Actually, that may be a little too glib. Sure, the only answer to any moral question is "The right thing to do is whatever a perfect being would do.", but is does identify the qualities of that perfect being...which is actually a pretty big "should" just sort of slipped in there. We should do the most rational thing. Why? Because that's the axiom we're starting with.
So, not only do I not think it is compelling theory of morality, as far as I can tell, it doesn't get rid of the should question at all.
[ February 22, 2013, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: My point was that there are other notions of "should" aside from the moral one--like the notion of which beliefs are fitting given your evidence (which is distinct from the notion of which beliefs are true).
I don't think there's actually a distinction to be made here. It's the same "should," as far as I'm concerned; the answer simply changes based on available information.
Saying that "why" means "most efficiently how" doesn't actually resolve the moral question at the heart of whether "why" should mean "most efficiently how;" it just asserts that it should. It's still answering the same "should" question, albeit by pretending that no other options exist.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
For example, why shouldn't "why" mean "least efficiently how"?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Saying that "why" means "most efficiently how" doesn't actually resolve the moral question at the heart of whether "why" should mean "most efficiently how;" it just asserts that it should.
Do you think this is any different from the issues that arise when we say that "octopus" means "eight-legged cephalopod"? If so, what's the difference? Because the octopus definition is definitely the sort of thing that can be objectively right.
quote:I don't think there's actually a distinction to be made here. It's the same "should," as far as I'm concerned; the answer simply changes based on available information.
It's definitely not the same "should." The epistemic should is about what you should do if you want to do the best you can at believing the truth. The moral should is about what you should do if you want to act as correctly as possible. Those can be totally different. For example, if Satan tells you he's going to kill a million people unless you stop believing that snow is white, you have excellent moral reason to believe that snow isn't white. But you don't thereby stop having epistemic reason to believe that snow is white. That's still the belief that your evidence supports.
quote:That's not a theory of morality. That's the total absence of a theory of morality.
Step 1) Assume there is a God. Step 2) Let God decide.
Not a God, an ideally capable version of yourself. And the theory doesn't "assume" there is such a person, except for rhetorical purposes. The right thing to do is what such a person would choose if they did exist.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yes, a entity that is omniscient, supremely powerful, and incapable of error. How is that not God?
Also, see my edit. From what I can tell, there is a huge implicit should there.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Yes, a entity that is omniscient, supremely powerful, and incapable of error. How is that not God?
First, it's not omnipotent.
Second, what if it is God? Suppose the theory is, the moral thing to do is what God would want you to do, if there were a God (but there actually isn't). What's wrong with that, as a definition of what's moral?
quote:Actually, that may be a little too glib. Sure, the only answer to any moral question is "The right thing to do is whatever a perfect being would do.", but is does identify the qualities of that perfect being...which is actually a pretty big "should" just sort of slipped in there. We should do the most rational thing. Why? Because that's the axiom we're starting with.
Not exactly. The idea is that the correct definition of "the right thing to do" is "most rational thing to do." Then we get into the question about whether definitions involve "should" in a problematic way. I think the octopus example shows that they obviously don't.
Similarly, the qualities of the perfect being are supposed to just be what we mean by "perfect," so again, we get into the question of whether assuming there's a correct definition is a problem.
If you think that assuming there's a correct definition of a word requires assumptions about the moral "should," (a) that's pretty weird and (b) I guess you must be really skeptical about what all of our words mean.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Do you think this is any different from the issues that arise when we say that "octopus" means "eight-legged cephalopod"? If so, what's the difference?
I do. In fact, I think it's a categorically different sort of question -- or, rather, a categorically different sort of answer.
quote: The epistemic should is about what you should do if you want to do the best you can at believing the truth. The moral should is about what you should do if you want to act as correctly as possible. Those can be totally different.
Of course! But we can safely ignore epistemic shoulds altogether, because they're just moral shoulds with worse access to information. An epistemic should for someone with perfect information is indistinguishable from a moral should, which is as it should be.
Your example makes things murkier, of course, because the issue isn't that a moral "should" is in conflict with an epistemic "should;" it's whether there is moral value inherent in a truth value. If there is not, whether or not Satan is threatening to kill people, there's no particular reason why you should believe something is true; it simply doesn't matter. The ultimate expression of this is the whole "brain in a box" issue, of course.
--------
I have no idea why you're getting hung up on the use of the word "should," as if it's the definition of "should" that's the problem and not the existence of the question. Saying "should" means "X" is to answer the question, which is -- to use your analogy -- to repeatedly assert to someone that the pulpy mass they found on the beach was undoubtedly once an octopus, when they're not sure whether it was a giant squid or even whether it's identifiable at all. You are, in other words, asserting the very thing that is being questioned.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I do. In fact, I think it's a categorically different sort of question -- or, rather, a categorically different sort of answer.
Clearly you missed the part where I said, "If so, what's the difference?"
quote:Of course! But we can safely ignore epistemic shoulds altogether, because they're just moral shoulds with worse access to information. An epistemic should for someone with perfect information is indistinguishable from a moral should, which is as it should be.
No, if you had perfect information in the snow example it would still be the case that believing snow is white fits your evidence best (since snow is actually white), while believing snow is not white saves the most lives. So it would still be epistemically rational for you to believe snow is white, and morally rational for you to believe snow is not white.
If I may make a broader point: it sounds like you're denying that there is an epistemic should (since you claim that it's just the moral should with less information and you don't believe in the moral should).
So do you think it's false that theists should not believe in God? It's false to say they're making an epistemic mistake in not following the evidence against God's existence?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:
quote:Yes, a entity that is omniscient, supremely powerful, and incapable of error. How is that not God?
First, it's not omnipotent.
In the way that matters here (rationality), it is.
quote:Second, what if it is God? Suppose the theory is, the moral thing to do is what God would want you to do, if there were a God (but there actually isn't). What's wrong with that, as a definition of what's moral?
That's fine, but it's not a theory. It's a tautology. The right thing to do is whatever a perfect entity who only does the right things does.
quote:
quote:Actually, that may be a little too glib. Sure, the only answer to any moral question is "The right thing to do is whatever a perfect being would do.", but is does identify the qualities of that perfect being...which is actually a pretty big "should" just sort of slipped in there. We should do the most rational thing. Why? Because that's the axiom we're starting with.
Not exactly. The idea is that the correct definition of "the right thing to do" is "most rational thing to do." Then we get into the question about whether definitions involve "should" in a problematic way. I think the octopus example shows that they obviously don't.
Similarly, the qualities of the perfect being are supposed to just be what we mean by "perfect," so again, we get into the question of whether assuming there's a correct definition is a problem.
If you think that assuming there's a correct definition of a word requires assumptions about the moral "should," (a) that's pretty weird and (b) I guess you must be really skeptical about what all of our words mean.
I'm not sure I follow that. If I get you, you are saying that defining perfect as the most rational thing doesn't rest on assuming that what we should do is the the most rational thing?
That makes no sense to me. That's the literal meaning of defining it that way.
Your example with the octopus doesn't work for me. You're trying to apply definition in the context of labeling something "That thing is an X" into the completely different context of equating two established things. Saying something is perfection means that it is the thing to aspire to, that is is the goal.
In this case, say that someone doesn't accept that what a person should do is the most rational thing, that they have some other standard of perfection. How do you argue against that?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So it would still be epistemically rational for you to believe snow is white, and morally rational for you to believe snow is not white.
And that's a moral "should" question: which should be more important? Epistemology has no inherent moral value unless you assert (or argue) that it does.
I don't think there's an epistemic should at all; I think there is a moral should that argues you should be able to accurately enough model reality with your worldview that your behavior does not become excessively costly or irrational as the predictive value of your model falls. But I have no moral interest whatsoever in whether or not a given belief is true -- except of course when that belief is itself positing the existence of a higher moral authority -- beyond whether that belief will lead to behavior calculated on faulty models.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: I have no idea why you're getting hung up on the use of the word "should," as if it's the definition of "should" that's the problem and not the existence of the question. Saying "should" means "X" is to answer the question, which is -- to use your analogy -- to repeatedly assert to someone that the pulpy mass they found on the beach was undoubtedly once an octopus, when they're not sure whether it was a giant squid or even whether it's identifiable at all. You are, in other words, asserting the very thing that is being questioned.
Whether there is good evidence about what the right definition is, is one question. (This seems to be what your beach example is getting at.)
Whether giving a definition in the first place involves the concept of "should" is a second, separate question.
You advanced an answer to the second question.
quote:Dan has asserted that "why" should be answered "most efficiently how," but that is itself a "should" question. It's turtles all the way down.
I gave an example to show it was wrong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Except that it really isn't. Your point was that you can say "for the purposes of this conversation, let's define X as Y." And sure, you can. We can point to a sandwich and say, "let's call that an octopus for the nonce." But when we are discussing the properties of octopi, you cannot say, "all octopi are made of some substance pressed between two or more pieces of bread" and then, when questioned, just declare that all octopi share the properties of sandwiches. It's the difference between specifying a label for something and trying to equate two different things by forcing them to share a label.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:In this case, say that someone doesn't accept that what a person should do is the most rational thing, that they have some other standard of perfection. How do you argue against that?
To follow up on that, for many people, moral perfection is defined as doing what is in the Bible. How is your definition any different from theirs?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:That's fine, but it's not a theory. It's a tautology. The right thing to do is whatever a perfect entity who only does the right things does.
In a sense you're right. A true definition is always a tautology, so that's no dig against the Smith theory.
Now, the theory would be circular in a problematic way if it said "the right thing to do is whatever a being who always does the right things would do." But the theory doesn't say that. It says "the right thing to do is whatever a being who is as intelligent and knowledgeable as possible would do."
That's the definition of "perfect being" that Smith uses.
quote:I'm not sure I follow that. If I get you, you are saying that defining perfect as the most rational thing doesn't rest on assuming that what we should do is the the most rational thing?
That makes no sense to me. That's the literal meaning of defining it that way.
Sorry, I think I was unclear here. "Perfect" was supposed to mean the attributes of the ideal judge that features in Smith's theory (perfect knowledge and intelligence), while "rational" is the feature actions have when Smith's ideal judge would choose them.
quote:In this case, say that someone doesn't accept that what a person should do is the most rational thing, that they have some other standard of perfection. How do you argue against that?
Someone might also have another standard of what counts as an octopus. They might be misled into thinking that squids are also octopi. I would argue against them by giving examples of how the word is actually used.
The same goes for the word "should." If someone says that what you (morally) "should" do means "the thing that will maximize happiness," I would point out to the person that we don't actually use the word "should" (in the moral sense) in a way that's compatible with that definition.
quote:I don't think there's an epistemic should at all;
I don't think I believe you. I mean, how many times have I seen you criticize someone for not forming their beliefs in the way that best explains their evidence? How many times have I seen you call someone's beliefs irrational? That was you, using the epistemic should.
quote:I think there is a moral should that argues you should be able to accurately enough model reality with your worldview that your behavior does not become excessively costly or irrational as the predictive value of your model falls. But I have no moral interest whatsoever in whether or not a given belief is true -- except of course when that belief is itself positing the existence of a higher moral authority -- beyond whether that belief will lead to behavior calculated on faulty models.
Me neither, but I think a lot of people are making horrendous mistakes in weighing evidence. Think of Steven's dietary theories. Are you really willing to say there's nothing wrong about the way he's settled on his ideas?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Except that it really isn't. Your point was that you can say "for the purposes of this conversation, let's define X as Y." And sure, you can. We can point to a sandwich and say, "let's call that an octopus for the nonce." But when we are discussing the properties of octopi, you cannot say, "all octopi are made of some substance pressed between two or more pieces of bread" and then, when questioned, just declare that all octopi share the properties of sandwiches. It's the difference between specifying a label for something and trying to equate two different things by forcing them to share a label.
OK, I think we've been talking past each other the whole time. I didn't mean that the definition could be adopted for the purposes of the discussion, I meant that Dan was saying it was the correct definition.
I would suggest that we drop this line of discussion and focus on the other issues where we've been making more sense.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:In this case, say that someone doesn't accept that what a person should do is the most rational thing, that they have some other standard of perfection. How do you argue against that?
To follow up on that, for many people, moral perfection is defined as doing what is in the Bible. How is your definition any different from theirs?
The question of what makes a definition correct is very difficult. You bring up a good puzzle. There are analogous puzzles about everyday words like "octopus." It's a tough question, but I don't think it's especially a problem for ethics as opposed to other areas of inquiry.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I mean, how many times have I seen you criticize someone for not forming their beliefs in the way that best explains their evidence? How many times have I seen you call someone's beliefs irrational? That was you, using the epistemic should.
Nope. That was me, using a moral should. Ill-formed beliefs can be dangerous, and dangerous things are, from a moral perspective, to be avoided. In other words: I am making a moral assertion, which is that a well-formed epistemology has positive value; given two equally effective behaviors, the one that is grounded in a higher truth value is better than the one that is not, specifically because it produces fewer poorly-modeled predictions.
The idea that you should believe something which is more correct is an entirely moral proposition, not an epistemological one.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:unknowably superior
I did not say it was unknowably superior. I said it was currently unknown. I also asserted that it will eventually be known, which rather seems to rule out "unknowable", no?
I'm not sure I get this. It seems to me that you've basically said the equivalent of "When the Second Coming happens, everyone will know that Christianity is true."
Or alternatively, "When the LHC finds the Higgs, we will know that the Standard Model is correct about how particles acquire mass." Or "if we continue doing physics for long enough, we will eventually unify gravity and the other forces".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
How would you test for the superiority of a moral priority?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I mean, how many times have I seen you criticize someone for not forming their beliefs in the way that best explains their evidence? How many times have I seen you call someone's beliefs irrational? That was you, using the epistemic should.
Nope. That was me, using a moral should. Ill-formed beliefs can be dangerous, and dangerous things are, from a moral perspective, to be avoided. In other words: I am making a moral assertion, which is that a well-formed epistemology has positive value; given two equally effective behaviors, the one that is grounded in a higher truth value is better than the one that is not, specifically because it produces fewer poorly-modeled predictions.
The idea that you should believe something which is more correct is an entirely moral proposition, not an epistemological one.
OK. I'm having a bit of a hard time believing that you're being serious about this, but let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right and the only "should" that applies to belief is the moral should.
I was originally trying to prove that "should" questions can have objective answers (without the existence of a privileged arbiter like God).
Do you think that it's objectively true that theists don't believe what they should, given the evidence before them?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Do you think that it's objectively true that theists don't believe what they should, given the evidence before them?
Nah. It depends on the belief, mainly -- and partly (but only partly, since correct(er) epistemology is not inherently moral in itself) on the evidence.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:It depends on the belief, mainly
What belief?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*blink* I don't think you're following me, or you couldn't possibly have asked that question. Where are you confused?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I guess what's got me confused is that I asked about a specific belief (belief in God). So I don't see how your answer could "depend on the belief," since I was just asking about that one belief.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Belief in any god, in and of itself? You're asking if that's categorically a moral wrong? Heck no.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Well, really I was asking about belief in a theistic God, given the evidence that's publicly available.
I must say I'm very surprised to hear you say that there's no objective sense in which atheism is (or could be) the correct belief to hold given our evidence, and theism is incorrect.
The examples can get really, strikingly ludicrous. Think of a guy who is holding a tennis ball in each hand, yet simultaneously says (and believes) "There's no such thing as a tennis ball. That's all just a myth."
You don't think it's objectively true that his belief is irrational and he shouldn't have it?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You don't think it's objectively true that his belief is irrational and he shouldn't have it?
His belief is irrational. I don't think it's objectively true that he shouldn't have it. Rationality is not inherently virtuous.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: How would you test for the superiority of a moral priority?
By knowing a sufficient amount about human neurophysics and how it interacts with our subjective experience of "X is morally right" to determine which such statements are correct and which aren't, in the same way that we currently know enough about cardiophysics to determine which rhythms are healthy and which aren't.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:By knowing a sufficient amount about human neurophysics and how it interacts with our subjective experience of "X is morally right" to determine which such statements are correct and which aren't
Why do you think neurophysics can tell us anything about objective truth? At best it might tell us what we prefer. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
The way the terms usually get used in ethics and epistemology,
"immoral" is to the moral should as "irrational" is to the epistemic should.
So it seems like either you're using the words in a different way than they're usually used, or you do in fact acknowledge the epistemic should.
Another way of saying this is that the concept of rationality is itself a normative concept (it concerns how things should be, not just how they are).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, I'm not buying into that usage at all.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Fair enough. In the future, I'll keep in mind that when you say someone is irrational, you don't mean that as a criticism of them, and there's no objective reason for them to change.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
There may be reasons for them to change. But those reasons have to go beyond simple irrationality.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And tell me that you realize that the list of "positive beliefs" given in your list is overwhelmingly a list of the only possible alternatives to divine intervention -- like "an atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said." While that's an oversimplification -- perhaps there's a third option -- it's not exactly a great example of a positive belief.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
and you don't believe in the moral should).