posted
There are innumerable masses in this world, who deny the existence of god and are perfectly content to wallow in filth. They are probably too lazy or too stupid to even consider posting on Hatrack. These are also atheists. You thoughtful Hatrack scientists are not in good company, and you ought to change the title of the flag that you rally under, just as good Christians ought not to rally under the same flag as the Spanish Inquisition.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see where this assumption that a non-belief in God allows you to have all sorts of orgies comes from. I mean, I am myself a moderately strong atheist, yet I have never done drugs (even alcohol) in my life, and I'm continually not getting invited to orgies. Is there a mailing list I should have signed up for, or something?
Incidentally, since pop-psychology analysis of other people is apparently OK in this thread, perhaps the believers who think this of atheists should take a good long look at what their own desires are. Are you sure you're happy as believers?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
skillz, I'd argue that you'd do well to disassociate yourself from the masses of evil-bearing, ignorant Christians, both historical and current. Many/most christians are as bad as you are making athiests out to be.
I think it's a mistake to assume a lack in people who don't belive the same as you do. Most people are immature, ignorant, ignoble, and igniferous. Well, maybe not that last part. Most Christians are christians because they are weak, immature people, and it shows. The same can be said for most athiests.
You can discuss the differing ideas and their implications or you can look at the way that people hold their beliefs, but trying to establish your superiority because you just assume that people who disagree with you must be fools or delusional or whatever other bad thing you can come up with is silly circular reasoning.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Until you have evidense that something exists, it is a safe assumption that it does not.
And this is why I'm not an atheist, at least not one of the "there is no god" ones. I don't see a need or reason to declare such an assumption.
If it cannot be proved, it remains in abeyance. It remains in a state of is/not is. The eigenstate has not yet collapsed, if you want to get all quantum about it. Does it make the slightest bit of difference to you if Bigfoot exists or not? If not, if it's not keeping you awake or anything, then why assume his nonexistence?
I find the fewer assumptions I make, of any kind, the fewer unwelcome surprises I encounter. The facts I know are solid and dependable, although I still check them against new evidence to make sure they're up to date. The rest remains in a delightful state of not-knowing, and that's just one of the things that keeps the world interesting.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Chris, that's fine when it comes to Bigfoot. Nobody ever declared a crusade over the proper way to hunt for Bigfoot. But belief in God has large implications for the way we structure society, and as I've said before, I think any form of religion, organised or not, is a net loss. That's why it's worth fighting the believers, because they inflict harm.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're sure acting like it does. I can't see how the line of argument you're pursuing leads down any other path.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the basic tenet still holds true, reasonable assumption or not - the lack of proof for the positive does not substitute for proof of the negative.
I actually agree with you here. But here we must separate proof with what can be considered practically proven.
It isn't actually proven gravity is a forever enduring force. For all we know, it could suddenly disappear at any time. However this has never happened, to our knowledge. You can't disprove that it won't happen. We must assume it won't, becuase as far as we know it has never failed.
Science has to make a lot of assumptions like that. You can never truely prove anything, just as you can never disprove anything. At any time, it could be hit with a counter example that totally rewrites the rules governing it. However, there comes a point where enough evidense has built up for it that you can pretty much call it practically proven. In other words, safe to assume. By the same means, there comes a point where the lack of evidense is consistant enough that it is safe to assume that the lack of evidense will remain that way.
The lack of substantial evidense for God is pretty consistant.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:listening to people call me wishy-washy gets boring so I've decided to relax and pick the more whimsical label.
Seems like you're kind of screwed either way. If you're an "agnostic" then you're "wishy-washy," but if you're an "apatheist" then apparently you're "lazy." But after giving it a good five minutes I'm still not clever enough to come up with anything better.
posted
For the record, I never called "apatheists" lazy. And I don't think agnostics are wishy-washy.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
...which is that it's silly for thoughtful, scientific-minded people, who don't know that there is a god, to rally to a thread that equates fools with atheists. Did you think Jay was talking about you? I had hoped to demonstrate that the majority of atheists, and I must concede believers as well, are indeed fools.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nobody ever declared a crusade over the proper way to hunt for Bigfoot. But belief in God has large implications for the way we structure society, and as I've said before, I think any form of religion, organised or not, is a net loss.
I disagree. I strongly suspect that humanity as a race became civilized faster because of religion (among other things) and that religious beliefs still help people become and remain useful members of society.
Before you can remove religion, you need to find a belief structure that teaches correct behavior, offers solace to those in need, and binds a community together. This isn't all that religion provides -- and religionists would surely argue for much, much more -- but it's the bare mimimum that a society needs. Take away all organized religion and you'd have an awful lot of confused, terrified, aimless people if there isn't anything comparable to offer.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Lu 14:26 If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Boy, being Christian sure is fun! I'm glad Jay showed me the error of my ways. And he pointed out how important it is to cite the Bible!
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
I just hadn't seen agnostics mentioned as anything positive yet and I wanted to get a word in for my homies.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If it cannot be proved, it remains in abeyance. It remains in a state of is/not is. The eigenstate has not yet collapsed, if you want to get all quantum about it. Does it make the slightest bit of difference to you if Bigfoot exists or not? If not, if it's not keeping you awake or anything, then why assume his nonexistence?
I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's a simple matter of not being able to help it. If I stop to think about it rationally I am forced to admit that there is no way to prove that there is no God, but my natural inclination is to believe that there isn't. I'd like to think that I'm reasonable enough that if I were presented with evidence to the contrary that I found compelling I'd change my mind, but in the absence of such evidence I find myself believing in the absence of deities.
I do, of course, recognize that that is a statement of faith.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But that's a failure of finding evidence for God in the scientific domain. Plenty of people have found evidence for God outside of this domain.
Peopel have used their religion to decribe things that are up for scientific analysis, and they've pretty consistenly gotten housed, but that's neither limited to reliigous ideology nor necessarily ecidence that what they don't believe in doesn't exist. It could just be that they've overextended their stuff that may be valid in the domains of values and subject into the scientific domain. Now many of them have made the objectively testible ancillarly parts of their religion central to their beliefs, but that could just be because they lack understanding of what is important. People have an orientation towards trying to get power over the objective world and many people pollute their religious thinking with this orientation.
The converse could be said for some atheist scientists. Their domain doesn't translate over into the spiritual one, but they inappropriately apply it there anyway.
Of course, I bleieve that both atheism and theism are valid ways of approaching the world but don't really subscribe to either, so maybe I don't fit into this conversation.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, religion in the ancient past was an attempt at science (or at least philosophy). It tried to explain the natural world around us. However it also grew ritual and nearly unchangeable dogma... When I hear the word atheist I think of people who have cast off this trapped, old way of thinking for the scientific method. But for some reason nowadays people seem to think of it as a quasi-political party... maybe because religion has become a quasi-policical party.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
skillz, Jay (and the quote he posted) were definitely trying to talk about anyone who's an athiest and how christians are by default categorically superior, much like if someone started a thread saying that all people who believed in religion were self-deluding fools, it would actually mean all atheists. You may notice that I talked directly to the idea of any side in any disagreement automatically assuming that the other side is necessarily deficient.
And, to turn it around, why are you aligning yourself with Jay, who is a pretty good example of a christian with some pretty severe failings?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris, I disagree, provisionally. You appear to be starting from a viewpoint that I don't think is necessarily valid, which is that people are intrinsically bad people who need to be taught and forced through a set of rules to be good. I don't believe that this is accurate and in fact, I think that one of the main effects of the moralistic religious systems is to sell that myth and keep the world in such a way that this is true.
I do what I do because I choose to, because it springs out of who I am. My guiding moral principle is empathy, whcih comes from inside me. I think that the externally imposed reward/punishment systems that the religious hold up as what keeps us from killing and raping at the drop of a hat actually usually serve to destroy empathy and teach people that they are unable to be good.
quote:and teach people that they are unable to be good
If people aren't able to consistently do good without external help, then your philosophy is fatal to human decency.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can certainly argue that we cannot prove that Gravity works the way the theory speculates and that it will always function the way we expect it.
Until a better answer comes along, however, we are willing to accept and work within the constraints of the notion.
Accepting that notion, God falls in the same category. Until a better notion comes along that forces a change in the thought process, there is nothing to adequately disprove the existence of God.
I tend to agree - until God or an agent I cannot deny makes His will manifest in such a fashion I cannot blame a bit of undigested bit of beer or an underdone potato, I cannot cast my lot in with the believers.
However, lack of practical proof does not change the existence of God. Long before we had any understanding of how science worked and man clung to sacrificing chickens to make fire work, fire still worked. Rocks, when dropped, fell. We couldn't prove how it happened or why - but we knew it did.
posted
And while nobody has organized a crusade over Bigfoot, I will submit that the occasional government has attempted to squash, squelch and otherwise suppress if not outright exterminate religious beliefs and those who practiced them.
posted
No, I don't think that all people are bad. I do think that many people need or want guidance above and beyond "you shouldn't do that" to overcome their own self interests for the benefit of the society in which they live.
A common question when the subject of agnosticism comes up is "but if you don't believe in God and eternal judgment, what's keeping you from running around shooting people?" All that question does for me is point out the obvious collorary: that the belief in God and eternal judgment just might be the ony thing keeping some people from doing just that.
I don't think people are naturally good or bad. I think they're people. I imagine you've worked with plenty of different people in your life. Tell me, how many needed to-do lists and constant nudging and how many worked because they saw what needed doing?
Note to my religious friends: yep, this is a horrible disservice to religion. I'm aware of that; I'm just arguing a small aspect.
[ April 01, 2005, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris, But I'm also well aware of the often drastic negative effects of external reward/punishment systems on motivation and performance. I don't think you can reasonaly argue that because people inside a system display exactly the attributes that I'm saying that system causes, that people outside that system would need the system.
Peopel are naturally selfish, but they're also naturally empathetic. What we have now enervates empathy while generally encouraging mere repression of selfishness.
Trevor, The distinction I'm drawing is not between relgious versus non-religious systems, but rather between systems that rely on external reward/punihsment systems of morality, which I believe encourage the dehumanization of "evil" people, versus those that do not.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah Dag, the only way I could counter that was if I, who don't hold myself to an external moral system, wasn;t the depraved would be murderous rapist who is only held back by the threat of the police that I must be under your philosophy. Or if there were any examples of all at people who lived empathetic lives without such an system imposed on them. Oh woe, my position is so untenable.
The description of the effects of external reward/punishment systems on motivation and peformance I'm describing aren't limited to morality. There's plenty of scientifically valid evidence that they have these effects in a very wide variety of situations. I'm apply the principles discovered in other places to the question of morality and it seems to make a pretty good fit to me.
---
edit: That people are intrinsically evil who must be forced to behave decently is an assumption and one that I think is pretty ridiculous in face of the evidence. Pelagius logically demolished Augustine's (who has even by his own admission an pretty morally weka person) arguments, but Augustine's philosopy appealed to the same people who then turned around and slaughtered the Pelagian "heretics" and burnt their books. So somehow, Augustine must have been showing the path to righteousness. THe simple observable fact remains that people don't have to Christian to be good. That pepole in many societies who don't have a monotheistic or even an external god religion nonetheless are able to form communities that function as well or better than the western European ones and that when they came into contact, it was the western Europeans who often showed themselves morally inferior.
quote:Jay, who is a pretty good example of a christian with some pretty severe failings?
That's me.
*is intrinsically bad*
It's a good thing that I believe in God and see the possibility of incarceration as a deterrent. There are plenty of people out there who need killin'
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah Dag, the only way I could counter that was if I, who don't hold myself to an external moral system, wasn;t the depraved would be murderous rapist who is only held back by the threat of the police that I must be under your philosophy. Or if there were any examples of all at people who lived empathetic lives without such an system imposed on them. Oh woe, my position is so untenable.
That's not a counter at all, since it's very possible that the benefits of religion, and more specifically, of God's help, extend to those who do not consciously profess faith in Him.
For someone so scientifically minded, it's surprisingly easy for you to ignore the effect of a system on those who are alongside, rather than within it.
Oh, except when the consequences are negative. You're very willing to impute those consequences to the system and its supernatural Source.
Dagonee P.S., I'm not going to bother dealing with your continuing definition of religion as a system of rewards/punishments only. We've been down that road and, frankly, it's boring.
posted
skillz, I don't actually think you're intrinsically bad, but who knows, you may be. I don't know you. The thing is, even if you are just a bad person, you're way overstepping the bounds of reason to assume that I and everyone else is as well. I don't feel constrained by external laws and yet I choose to do as much good as I can, because that's how I fully express who I am.
By your system, I would necessarily be your moral inferior. I'd repond that by my fruits you will know me. I don't think that I (or many others like me) act like your moral inferior or that (unless you define morality as many do as professing a belief in Jesus) we are immoral people. If we aren't, your system logically falls apart, unless you are willing to say that God overrides our free will.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I don't just not profess belief in the Christian god. I've renounced him. If he exists, I don't want his help. If I can't be moral on my own, I will not be moral. Likewise, I've renounced the Christian basis of morality. I choose my actions and not against external constraints. I've organized my approach to the world on very different principles. I am a better person than is average for my society because I reject the system.
There are plenty of societies that weren't exposed to what we understand as religion but existed in harmony nonetheless. If God is willing to grant him enough grace to be moral without them believing in him, the argument still falls apart. They are examples of people who didn't need a belief in God nor an externally imposed moral system to be moral.
If you're going to make an argument against what I'm saying, make an argument, don't just keep throwing assumptions at me.
P.S. I've never said that religion is only reward/punishment, only that it plays are huge role in contemporary and historical religion and that it inextricabily tied to the assumption that people are intrinsically evil without external intervention.
quote: I do what I do because I choose to, because it springs out of who I am. My guiding moral principle is empathy, whcih comes from inside me.
Mr. Squicky, I disagree with you, at least slightly, if not completely. Some people are born with a gift for empathy. But a lot of people aren't.
*raises hand*
And while being taught isn't a guaruntee of learning, I think it makes a huge difference. This has nothing to do with religion, this has to do with the belief that the ideologies that we are raised with shape us in powerful ways. I think we need to be taught to be moral. I think religion *can* do an excellent job of that (I agree it has failed monstrously at times too). I also believe that you *can* teach morality without religion (aka humanist ideology).
I will take a moment to point out that humanist morality will in some places differ from religious morality, and thus people coming from those two different ideologies will look at each other, point, and accuse: "Immoral!" Some of this is reconcilable with understanding. Sometimes the conflict is not so easy to diffuse (like in the gay marriage debate.)
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Likewise, I've renounced the Christian basis of morality. I choose my actions and not against external constraints. I've organized my approach to the world on very different principles. I am a better person than is average for my society because I reject the system.
posted
No, I'm challenging the assumption that people are intrinsically evil by presenting evidence, showing how by what we understand of how motivational systems work, the current conception of morality would actually lead to less, rather than more moral people, and bringing up the Pelagian versus Augustinian original sin debate in a context where it cann't be settled by the "moral" people who believe in origianl sin slaughtering the "immoral" people who don't.
You're saying that because I don't fit your assumptions, I'm either evil or just suprememly deluded.
Christians have been really bad people for most of history. The advances we've made in science, epistemology, government, and morality have come in large part from people who were reacting against and/or rejecting christianity. Our nation nor the ideals of equal justice and individual rights wouldn't exist in their current form witohut people who were against the christian churches. And yet, because of your assumptions, these people must be the moral inferiors to the christians who fought them or else were really christians despite their beliefs to the contrary.
You haven't offered an evidence or even much of an extrapolation for what you're saying. You've just dismissed everything I've said because it disagrees with your assumption. The best you got is that most people believe it, but, as I've said, most people are ignorant and immature, so I'd actually count that against your posiiton.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
You haven't presented ANY evidence. You've stated premises I don't believe and then try to call me to task for not accepting the consequences of those premises.
I don't accept that it's a question of motivation. It is an assumption of yours that motivation is at the heart of morality. NOTHING you present to me about motivation, therefore, is relevant until you prove that motivation is the primary force to be dealt with.
posted
bev, You're super-mormon lady. Why is you not having empathy an argument against me saying that religious systems tend to lead to an atrophy of empathy? That actually supports what I'm saying. If you either had an extraordinary amount of empathy that you felt derived from external sources or you were without external morality but had little empathy (and there are plenty of these people out there), it would be evidence, though hardly compelling.
I love children and I think I'm pretty darn good with them. Here's my thinking. They're haven't been taught morality and you know what, barring psychological damage, they've got a lot of empathy. They'll cry when their pet or even a stuffed animal get hurt. They can be overcome with joy just because you are really happy. They are also terribly selfish. The two things exist next to each other. They don't need to learn compassion; they already have it. They need to mature, to become more aware of others and less selfish and their compassion shines through.
They're not little monsters though. They don't get like that generally until they hit school, which is organized around the external reward/punishment system. They certainly don't learn compassion here, although they may learn to follow rules without reason. They definitely learn cruelty.
Psychologically healthy pre-school age children don't set out to do bad or to hurt other people. At worst, they like to tease and they are struggling for power over their environemnt. But our schools are bredding grounds for this type of cruelty and for the categorization of people who it's okay to do bad things to.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
bev, I'm talking about historical fact. Most Christians have been ignorant, cruel, bloodthirsty, power hungry savages through most of history. Their history is one of atrocities and exploitation.
edit: I should ammend that, because I really can't say that with confidence. Rather, the majority of Christians and their actions that have been recorded by history have been pretty atrocious. The vast majority of Christians haven't been considered historically relevant, so saying stuff about them isn't really responsible.
posted
Dag, I don't understand how you can divorce motivation from morality. Morality breaks down into what people do, what people intend to do, or some combination of these. Unless you're either denying free will or saying that what people do is not tied to their motivations, I don't see how motivation isn't the primary force between any of those three.
How do you see morality such that motivation isn't important?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point is, I had to be *taught* empathy. It wasn't inborn.
I'm not arguing about who does the teaching, only that religion has often been THE BIG teacher of those things. Often there just wasn't anything else.
Neither I nor anyone else has said that children are "little monsters". I am a strong advocate for the "dual nature of man" ideology. I had the capacity for good, or I wouldn't have learned it. Just because it is taught does not mean I have to learn. But I have to constantly fight my less noble qualities. It is a choice. And it is a choice that anyone is capable of, belief in God or not. But there must be an example of goodness provided. I do think that when there is no example of goodness, it is *very* difficult for the rising generation to learn it. They may succeed, but they will be in the minority.
Actually, based on LDS scripture in particular, I think that Abraham was such a man. He appeared to have no examples for goodness around him, and yet he wanted goodness so badly, he found it. He found God. I believe that was part of what made him such an amazing man--one God could truly trust--and that that is why he was so highly praised ever after in scripture.
Because I believe in God, I believe that part of what God does is provide a correct role model for goodness. I believe that God embodies goodness and morality by choice, and that His purpose is doing what is best for humanity. I believe that when He has caused destruction, it was for the greater good in the eternal perspective. It is true that when there are stories in the Old Testament that paint Him as doing senseless violence, I tend to question the accuracy of the story or my knowledge of the situation than to assume that God is something other than good and loving.
Perhaps it is in my nature to lean towards trusting the God I already believe exists. Perhaps it is a form of optomism. I don't know.
quote: I'm talking about historical fact. Most Christians have been ignorant, cruel, bloodthirsty, power hungry savages through most of history. Their history is one of atrocities and exploitation.
*PEOPLE* have been ignorant, cruel, bloodthirsty, power hungry savages. That most of Western civilization was Christian for the last couple thousand years is irrelevant.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
