So you're an atheist. Ok, what next?

[cyborg]

Prizes are only for the 1001st post.

You lose.

[plumjam]

Ok, thanks for the responses.

I'd just like to point out / clarify some mistakes and/or misinterpretations that seem to be commonly cropping up in people's responses.

The first one is to do with the objectivity/subjectivity thing.
So far, everyone seems to have implicitly agreed that the chair is objective, so that can be our starting point.

Imagine you all believe the contrary; that the chair is purely subjective. You have all been brought up within an educational system that tells you explicitly and implicitly to believe that chairs are purely subjective.

Then someone comes along - lets call him Frank - and tries to convince you all that the chair is, in fact, objective.
How would you interpret what he was telling you?
Would it be fair for you to conclude that therefore Frank is saying that his own particular (subjective) visual perception of the chair is superior to yours, and that therefore you should, in all matters pertaining to seating architecture, defer your opinion to that of Frank?

Furthermore, would you interpret Frank - simply because his position is that chairs exist objectively rather than purely subjectively - as implying that he is a superior person to yourself?
Would you attack him for being arrogant?

In actual fact, the only thing Frank is saying is that the chair exists objectively.

He is not saying that his visual perception of the chair is any better than your own. From what he has said it would be unfair to conclude that Frank is being arrogant about chairs. Frank has said all along that some people will have better visual perception than others; some will be colour blind, visually impaired, or completely blind. By saying this Frank is not arrogantly assuming that his vision is necessarily better than anyone else's.

In actual fact he is implicitly accepting a quite humble position in which he is recognising that the vision of some other people will almost certainly be better than his own.

Why can so many people not see this? Is it that their intellectual vision is not as good as mine? (joke)

So, to hopefully clarify things, you just need to apply the above scenario, substituting the chair with morality and aesthetics.


Another one is that people seem to be assuming that I'm doing the whole "atheists are bad" thing.
That is not me at all.
In my everyday life if I were to learn that Pete is a theist and Mike is an atheist, gaining that knowledge would have no impact whatsoever on my view of how moral they were likely to be, as individuals.
This goes back to what I was saying a few pages back. Namely that although an atheist has atheist and (almost always) materialist beliefs, beliefs inhabit a more superficial level of the individual than does morality.
In reality hardly any atheist materialists at all will live morally in harmony with their ontological beliefs. Instead they live their moral lives almost always in harmony with the ontological beliefs of a theist.
By this I mean that atheists believe in things like:

treating the human individual as having a moral value that is non-reducible to their physical constituents

treating people as ends rather than means

believing that people are entitled to a prima facie equality of human rights before the law, regardless of their particular physical constituents and characteristics, their membership of a particular race, nation etc..

that a person's moral value is not affected by that person's level of utility to the species/society



The above things are all, as it were, faith statements that can, in no way find support within the ontological beliefs of a materialist atheist. Put simply, there is no empirical evidence to support such statements.

They are, in fact, faith statements which assert that the most important aspect of a human being's existence lies beyond the merely physical. It is a spiritual view of man. And one shared by AFAIK all forms of theism.
Without an extra-physical view of man the above statements would be gibberish.

So, folks. You may be ontological atheists, but you are all (hopefully and thankfully) moral theists.

[KingMerv00]

Then someone comes along - lets call him Frank - and tries to convince you all that the chair is, in fact, objective.
How would you interpret what he was telling you?
Would it be fair for you to conclude that therefore Frank is saying that his own particular (subjective) visual perception of the chair is superior to yours, and that therefore you should, in all matters pertaining to seating architecture, defer your opinion to that of Frank?

Furthermore, would you interpret Frank - simply because his position is that chairs exist objectively rather than purely subjectively - as implying that he is a superior person to yourself?
Would you attack him for being arrogant?

In actual fact, the only thing Frank is saying is that the chair exists objectively.

Going with the hypo:
Fine, chairs are objective. That does not mean beauty is.

[cyborg]

Why can so many people not see this? Is it that their intellectual vision is not as good as mine? (joke)

This is correct.

Of course the "goodness" of the intellectual vision is oppositely relative to yours.

[Foster Zygote]

So, folks. You may be ontological atheists, but you are all (hopefully and thankfully) moral theists.

Bigot: "You may have dark skin, but you (hopefully and thankfully) act just like white people."

[John_Geeshu]

Moral standards are not arbitrary by any viewpoint. They evolved through natural selection pressures and input from the group the individual is influenced by.

I tentatively agree with the second statement.

[Tricky]

So, folks. You may be ontological atheists, but you are all (hopefully and thankfully) moral theists.
(sigh) Plum, you're doing it again. I am not sure what it takes to convince you that this is in fact an insult to atheists. You are saying, "since you're all nice, moral people, it must be related somehow to theism, since ontologically, atheism wouldn't make you nice, moral people."

In one sense you are right. Atheism doesn't make you moral. In another sense you are wrong. Theism doesn't make you moral either.

So as long as you continue to spout this unsupported and unsupportable contention, you will be contradicted, sometimes angrily.

And you will deserve it.

[KingMerv00]

Bigot: "You may have dark skin, but you (hopefully and thankfully) act just like white people."

Plumjam is a bigot...bigotry is bad...therefore plumjam is an atheist.:rolleyes:

[X]

Another one is that people seem to be assuming that I'm doing the whole "atheists are bad" thing.
That is not me at all.
In my everyday life if I were to learn that Pete is a theist and Mike is an atheist, gaining that knowledge would have no impact whatsoever on my view of how moral they were likely to be, as individuals.
This goes back to what I was saying a few pages back. Namely that although an atheist has atheist and (almost always) materialist beliefs, beliefs inhabit a more superficial level of the individual than does morality.
In reality hardly any atheist materialists at all will live morally in harmony with their ontological beliefs. Instead they live their moral lives almost always in harmony with the ontological beliefs of a theist.

Here's the problem that people have with this:

You are assuming thet there is an atheist way of life, or philosophical outlook, or what-have-you.

There isn't.

Atheism is a lack of belief if god(s). Nothing more. Trying to read more into it is asking for trouble.
Trying to equate it with materialism and the like is begging to have that comparison contested.
Some atheists might be materialists (exclusive or otherwise), some might not.

Tha basic point is that the moment you try to lump all athesists into a generalization, and then try to tell them how they actually live and think based only on the fact that they don't believe in god(s), is false association. And whereas you might find a few or evena majority of atheists who do indeed ascride to your idea, you will find several who do not. And since you generalized every atheist to living this way ("all atheists are exclusive materialists, etc"), it only takes one who is not for your whole generalization to come crashing down.

The second objections people have is that morality plainly is not moral, or else societies all over the world and throughout history would have had the same morals, which plainly is not the case.

Unless you wish to contend that we are somehow more enlightened than our ancestors in such things, which is a purely subjective measure.

[plumjam]

(sigh) Plum, you're doing it again. I am not sure what it takes to convince you that this is in fact an insult to atheists. You are saying, "since you're all nice, moral people, it must be related somehow to theism, since ontologically, atheism wouldn't make you nice, moral people."

In one sense you are right. Atheism doesn't make you moral. In another sense you are wrong. Theism doesn't make you moral either.

So as long as you continue to spout this unsupported and unsupportable contention, you will be contradicted, sometimes angrily.

And you will deserve it.

Assuming you agree with the 4 statements, on what would you base this agreement?
A purely physical view of man, or a spiritual one?

[zooterkin]

Assuming you agree with the 4 statements, on what would you base this agreement?
A purely physical view of man, or a spiritual one?

Define your terms; what do you mean by spiritual?

[Tricky]

Assuming you agree with the 4 statements, on what would you base this agreement?
A purely physical view of man, or a spiritual one?
Which four statements?

And I try to base all my agreements on evidence.

But Foster Zygote says it better than I did. In fact, there is a real-world correlary. A few months ago Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly went to a restaurant and commented that he was surprised that it didn't fit any racial stereotypes (http://mediamatters.org/items/200709210007). For some reason, he saw that as perfectly harmless, but those being characterized by his "surprised no one was screaming for their M-Fing tea" comment were justifiably insulted.

And this is exactly what you are doing. You're saying, "You're all so nice, I can't believe you have atheist ontology." If you cannot see the insult in that, then I suggest you apply for a position with Fox News.

[godless dave]

Another one is that people seem to be assuming that I'm doing the whole "atheists are bad" thing.
That is not me at all.
In my everyday life if I were to learn that Pete is a theist and Mike is an atheist, gaining that knowledge would have no impact whatsoever on my view of how moral they were likely to be, as individuals.
This goes back to what I was saying a few pages back. Namely that although an atheist has atheist and (almost always) materialist beliefs, beliefs inhabit a more superficial level of the individual than does morality.
In reality hardly any atheist materialists at all will live morally in harmony with their ontological beliefs. Instead they live their moral lives almost always in harmony with the ontological beliefs of a theist.

Oh we understand what you're saying. It would be hard not too, as most of us have heard this argument a few thousand times already. We just disagree with it. I've bolded the part that we disagree with.


By this I mean that atheists believe in things like:

treating the human individual as having a moral value that is non-reducible to their physical constituents

treating people as ends rather than means

believing that people are entitled to a prima facie equality of human rights before the law, regardless of their particular physical constituents and characteristics, their membership of a particular race, nation etc..

that a person's moral value is not affected by that person's level of utility to the species/society

There is nothing theistic about those beliefs. They are as compatible with atheism as they are with theism; they are equally compatible with organic chemistry. What you've described above is humanism, which has jack squat to do with ontological beliefs.


The above things are all, as it were, faith statements that can, in no way find support within the ontological beliefs of a materialist atheist.

So what?


Put simply, there is no empirical evidence to support such statements.

So what?


They are, in fact, faith statements which assert that the most important aspect of a human being's existence lies beyond the merely physical. It is a spiritual view of man.

No, they aren't. There is nothing spiritual about them. There is nothing that posits the existence of anything beyond the physical. Last I checked, humans were physical beings.


And one shared by AFAIK all forms of theism.

You need to do some research. There are many variations of Christianity and Islam that have no regard for individual human rights; or that consider men to have more rights than women; or that gay people have no rights. There are also various tribal beliefs that hold the ruling class to be more important than the other classes.


Without an extra-physical view of man the above statements would be gibberish.


Why? What is extra-physical about humanism or morality?


So, folks. You may be ontological atheists, but you are all (hopefully and thankfully) moral theists.

Do you really have no idea of how insulting that sounds?

[plumjam]

Which four statements?

these 4:

treating the human individual as having a moral value that is non-reducible to their physical constituents

treating people as ends rather than means

believing that people are entitled to a prima facie equality of human rights before the law, regardless of their particular physical constituents and characteristics, their membership of a particular race, nation etc..

that a person's moral value is not affected by that person's level of utility to the species/society


And I try to base all my agreements on evidence. on the above, using what evidence would you agree/disagree with them?

But Foster Zygote says it better than I did. In fact, there is a real-world correlary. A few months ago Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly went to a restaurant and commented that he was surprised that it didn't fit any racial stereotypes (http://mediamatters.org/items/200709210007). For some reason, he saw that as perfectly harmless, but those being characterized by his "surprised no one was screaming for their M-Fing tea" comment were justifiably insulted.

And this is exactly what you are doing. You're saying, "You're all so nice, I can't believe you have atheist ontology." If you cannot see the insult in that, then I suggest you apply for a position with Fox News.

well, I've already explained this 3 or 4 times. The ontology is out of harmony with the morality. The ontology, being a set of beliefs, exists at a more superficial level of the individual. Morality, being deeper than ontological belief is more primary, and the problems only start when mistaken ontological beliefs (such as materialism) formulate themselves into (consequently erroneous) moral systems, which are imposed via political power upon the individual conscience.

I would not judge the individual morality of a person going simply on their ontological beliefs. If mistaken ontological beliefs become an active part of a person's morality, then yes, that person's individual morality will suffer as a result.
What I am saying is that in almost no cases, these days, do the mistaken ontological beliefs of exclusive materialism become active parts of a person's morality.
This was not the case even during the lifetime of my still-alive grandmother. Her lifespan has seen the rise and fall of the eugenics movement, nazism and communism. These were so disastrous that the lessons of history fortunately currently provide some kind of guard against a mistaken ontology like materialism finding it's way back into the realm of morality.

This lesson from history is what ensures, nowadays, that ontological atheist materialists in fact live morally as theists.

Thank God. :p

Why you should persist in seeing this as an insult I have no idea.
Your ontological beliefs are not you.
Your morality is a lot closer to what you are.

[cyborg]

This was not the case even during the lifetime of my still-alive grandmother. Her lifespan has seen the rise and fall of the eugenics movement, nazism and communism. These were so disastrous that the lessons of history fortunately currently provide some kind of guard against a mistaken ontology like materialism finding it's way back into the realm of morality.

Why you should persist in seeing this as an insult I have no idea.

It is your inability to grasp that "the eugenics movement, nazism and communism," have no entailments from a material position on the nature of reality.

It is rather insulting to be told it is our fault when you trip over and hurt yourself on this intellectual stumbling block when you're the one who placed it there in the first place.

[devnull]

dont tar me with that brush - if Im forced to live as morally as a theist, Ill be forced to fill my kid's heads with complete nonsense, then Ill have to become completely hypocritical, Ill badmouth people behind their backs (but its ok cos I can always confess), then to cap off the day Ill have to go play with a 4 year old's ding dong.

No thanks. The whole idea of "as morally as theists" is contemptible, and has earned you the sole spot on my ignore list.

thanks

[bokonon]

Plumjam, I think you're failing to realize that there is no connection between materialism and morality. I don't have to think that people have a "spirit" which is independent of "matter" to think that they deserve respect.

I don't burn books to heat my house, but it isn't because I think the book contains a "spirit" or will suffer in some way by my actions.

You continue to retreat to this default position of "theism is the source of all things good," but the position doesn't seem defensible.

Attributing my good actions to a theism which is deeper than my surface materialism is just playing word games, and has no connection to my true motives.

[SonOfLaertes]

these 4:

This was not the case even during the lifetime of my still-alive grandmother. Her lifespan has seen the rise and fall of the eugenics movement, nazism and communism. These were so disastrous that the lessons of history fortunately currently provide some kind of guard against a mistaken ontology like materialism finding it's way back into the realm of morality.

This lesson from history is what ensures, nowadays, that ontological atheist materialists in fact live morally as theists.

Thank God. :p

Why you should persist in seeing this as an insult I have no idea.
Your ontological beliefs are not you.
Your morality is a lot closer to what you are.

And around, around we go. When will it stop? Nobody knows.

[joobz]

these 4:

treating the human individual as having a moral value that is non-reducible to their physical constituents

treating people as ends rather than means

believing that people are entitled to a prima facie equality of human rights before the law, regardless of their particular physical constituents and characteristics, their membership of a particular race, nation etc..

that a person's moral value is not affected by that person's level of utility to the species/society


on the above, using what evidence would you agree/disagree with them?
I wouldn't agree with the wording becuase it's rather cumbersome. but in essense yes.
Now, none of those postulates requires a god to make them more/less useful. And many theist beliefs had argued against those principles:
1.) hindu caste system
2.) slavery
3.) Priest classes
4.) infidels

as such, it seems rather silly to argue that thiesm is needed for morality when thiesm doesn't even agree on what morality is.
well, I've already explained this 3 or 4 times. The ontology is out of harmony with the morality.Saying this doesn't make it true.
The ontology, being a set of beliefs, exists at a more superficial level of the individual. Morality, being deeper than ontological belief is more primary, and the problems only start when mistaken ontological beliefs (such as materialism) formulate themselves into (consequently erroneous) moral systems, which are imposed via political power upon the individual conscience.
Calling morality deeper doesn't mean anything. Morality is complex but that's not the same thing.

I would not judge the individual morality of a person going simply on their ontological beliefs. If mistaken ontological beliefs become an active part of a person's morality, then yes, that person's individual morality will suffer as a result.
Just as arrogance in assuming your have a direct line to the "true morality" is a dangerous ontological belief which can result in a severely quesitonable moral system.
What I am saying is that in almost no cases, these days, do the mistaken ontological beliefs of exclusive materialism become active parts of a person's morality.
This was not the case even during the lifetime of my still-alive grandmother. Her lifespan has seen the rise and fall of the eugenics movement, nazism and communism. These were so disastrous that the lessons of history fortunately currently provide some kind of guard against a mistaken ontology like materialism finding it's way back into the realm of morality.You keep invoking nonsense. Saying hitler stalin repeatedly doesn't prove your case. This isn't an example.
Why you should persist in seeing this as an insult I have no idea.
Your ontological beliefs are not you.
Your morality is a lot closer to what you are.
"I'm better than you, but I don't know why you should be bothered by this..."

[plumjam]

Define your terms; what do you mean by spiritual?

3 Dic. definitions:
of, pertaining to, or consisting of spirit; incorporeal.
of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature
of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal

... that the experienced essence of the human being lies not in the material body, but in something inhabiting the body, and which survives bodily death.. typically referred to as soul or spirit.

[bokonon]

3 Dic. definitions:
of, pertaining to, or consisting of spirit; incorporeal.
of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature
of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal

... that the experienced essence of the human being lies not in the material body, but in something inhabiting the body, and which survives bodily death.. typically referred to as soul or spirit.
If the essence of human beings is not OF the body, but IN the body, and survives bodily death, then liberating the essence from that which is the source of all its suffering would seem to be the most moral act one could perform.

Yet, theists (thankfully) don't behave in accordance with their spiritual beliefs. Their actions are out of harmony with their beliefs. They (thankfully) behave more like atheist materialists, as though bodily death is an undesirable state.

Go figure.

[zooterkin]

3 Dic. definitions:
of, pertaining to, or consisting of spirit; incorporeal.
of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature
of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal

... that the experienced essence of the human being lies not in the material body, but in something inhabiting the body, and which survives bodily death.. typically referred to as soul or spirit.

I'm surprised you have to ask, but in that case, no, the spirit does not enter into it.

(Are there atheists who believe in a spirit that is separate from the body?)

[godless dave]

By that definition of spiritual, morality does not require spirituality.

[Hokulele]

(Are there atheists who believe in a spirit that is separate from the body?)


Yep, Buddhists and Raelians spring to mind.

[plumjam]

If the essence of human beings is not OF the body, but IN the body, and survives bodily death, then liberating the essence from that which is the source of all its suffering would seem to be the most moral act one could perform.

Yet, theists (thankfully) don't behave in accordance with their spiritual beliefs. Their actions are out of harmony with their beliefs. They (thankfully) behave more like atheist materialists, as though bodily death is an undesirable state.

Go figure.

that may be so, if it were not for the fact that the universe has a specific meaning and directionality
bodies exist as vehicles which souls use to interact with each other in an intersubjective 'arena'.. this is an essential and necessary part of the journey of consciousness

for one soul (A) to 'liberate' another soul (B) from its body is soul A unwarrantedly interfering with, and presenting an obstacle to, the journey of consciousness which B is undertaking
soul B is then, through no fault of its own, forced to go through the afterlife, and reincarnate once more, just to get back to square one

(not to mention the emotional pain caused to the family and friends of soul B in that body)

[joobz]

that may be so, if it were not for the fact that the universe has a specific meaning and directionality
Is this one of those facts that you learn by being part of the god ingroup?

[plumjam]

Is this one of those facts that you learn by being part of the god ingroup?

yes Joobz,

come on into the jacuzzi, it a-warm and it a-bubblin' :p

[bokonon]

bodies exist as vehicles which souls use to interact with each other in an intersubjective 'arena'.. this is an essential and necessary part of the journey of consciousness
Bodies are essential and necessary? Now you're talking like some kind of materialist.

for one soul (A) to 'liberate' another soul (B) from its body is soul A unwarrantedly interfering with, and presenting an obstacle to, the journey of consciousness which B is undertaking
Obstacle? Or shortcut?

soul B is then, through no fault of its own, forced to go through the afterlife, and reincarnate once more, just to get back to square one
So, moving from square one to square two requires a body, and no progress is possible except to the living.

Plumjam, that's the MATERIALISM talking!

(not to mention the emotional pain caused to the family and friends of soul B in that body)Easily solved. Liberate them too.

As I say, people who pretend to believe in an afterlife still live as though they don't. Their actions are inconsistent and out of harmony with the beliefs they espouse.

And that's a good thing. If masses of people ever start really believing the mystical mumbo jumbo, it will be Jonestown on every street corner.

[Lamuella]

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now?
Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.

Ok. Then what?

What can you do that is positive?
Are there any specifically atheist 'values'?
Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?
(I don't think I've heard of any. Whereas religious charities there are thousands.)

Well, it's up to you. What next?
Preferably positive.

I'm confused by your question.

why should there need to be something that is "next" in my personal viewpoint? Why can't not believing in god merely be a part of who I am?

My values are not "atheist values" and I probably wouldn't hold such things if they existed. My values are however determinedly secular.

The charities I give to are not atheist charities but rather secular ones, and these abound.

You are making the mistake of thinking of atheism as being like a religion, with rites and mythology and so forth. Atheism is the absence of a religion

Oh, and I'd never be so incurably bloody rude as to "rescue" anyone from a religious faith they were happy with.

[SonOfLaertes]

Is this one of those facts that you learn by being part of the god ingroup?

Plumjam has so far scrupulously avoided bringing the nuts and bolts of his belief system into the discussion, as doing so opens them up to scrutiny.

For the record, PJ, and I apologize if you have addressed this elsewhere, but I'm curious: do you believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of the Creator? If so, how do explain the casual references to the killing of children, first born or otherwise? If not, exactly which parts are Objective Moral Truth and which parts are parables? And who (which person or group) is best qualified to make the distinction?

Specifically, which of the Ten Commandments are objective moral truth and which need further interpretation?

I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from, as you have made many references to Christianity but seem to have no problem with re-incarnation. Also, since Christians themselves can't come close to agreeing on how the Bible should be interpreted, I would be curious to hear your spin on the Bible's relationship to Objective Moral Truth.

And again , I apologize if you have addressed this elsewhere.

[Safe-Keeper]

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at the belief that trolls and dragons are not real.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now?
Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.

Ok. Then what?

What can you do that is positive?
Are there any specifically adraconist 'values'?
Are there any specifically adraconist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?

Well, it's up to you. What next?
Preferably positive.

Edit to add: Oh, and look at how Hitler, Mao and Stalin never believed in trolls, while the Vikings prospered while they believed in trolls:jaw-dropp!

[godless dave]

What I don't understand is, why does something have to transcend the physical to have value? I believe humans are purely physical beings. And I value human life. Where's the contradiction?

[KingMerv00]

That's it, Plumjam is stuck in a recursive loop. I'm bailing.

Everyone save yourselves.

[bokonon]

I apologize if you have addressed this elsewhere, but I'm curious: do you believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of the Creator?
Based on this thread, and his most recent post, it looks like Plumjam subscribes to one of the eastern mysticism brands of theism -- reincarnation, "back to Godhead," etc. I'd be surprised if he was one who claimed the Bible is the inerrant word of God; I don't think reincarnation is a part of that belief system.

[Foster Zygote]

yes Joobz,

come on into the jacuzzi, it a-warm and it a-bubblin' :p

Whatever you do Joobz, don't get into a car with Plumjam's god.

[bokonon]

That's it, Plumjam is stuck in a recursive loop. I'm bailing.

Everyone save yourselves.
Spoken like one who doesn't believe he'll live forever, and chooses to ration the time he spends responding to the same old same old.

[plumjam]

Plumjam has so far scrupulously avoided bringing the nuts and bolts of his belief system into the discussion, as doing so opens them up to scrutiny.

For the record, PJ, and I apologize if you have addressed this elsewhere, but I'm curious: do you believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of the Creator? If so, how do explain the casual references to the killing of children, first born or otherwise? If not, exactly which parts are Objective Moral Truth and which parts are parables? And who (which person or group) is best qualified to make the distinction?

Specifically, which of the Ten Commandments are objective moral truth and which need further interpretation?

I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from, as you have made many references to Christianity but seem to have no problem with re-incarnation. Also, since Christians themselves can't come close to agreeing on how the Bible should be interpreted, I would be curious to hear your spin on the Bible's relationship to Objective Moral Truth.

And again , I apologize if you have addressed this elsewhere.

I have mentioned, and linked to, the nuts and bolts of where I am coming from, at least once, maybe twice in this thread

http://discoursesbymeherbaba.org/

Seeing as you ask me about the Bible, I am not a Christian, though I was brought up in a more or less religiously apathetic Anglican family and school system.
I respect Christianity. There is a great deal in it I very much admire. The lives and teachings of Jesus and the saints, the monastic traditions, the Christian mystics etc..
There are good things in the Bible, but in general it's not a book I would open very often.
I believe I'm correct in saying that I've never used anything from the Bible to substantiate any of the arguments I've made on this forum.
(However, I reserve the right in future to use the odd saying of Jesus)
I hope that answers your questions :)

[Foster Zygote]

Based on this thread, and his most recent post, it looks like Plumjam subscribes to one of the eastern mysticism brands of theism -- reincarnation, "back to Godhead," etc. I'd be surprised if he was one who claimed the Bible is the inerrant word of God; I don't think reincarnation is a part of that belief system.

Plumjam would seem to be a follower of Meher Baba, who declared himself to be God. That photo of the fellow who resembles Bill Cody on his profile page is a young Meher Baba.

[plumjam]

Bodies are essential and necessary? Now you're talking like some kind of materialist.
Precisely wrong. A materialist would never say bodies were essential and necessary. He/she would say they were unnecessary and non-essential; being unintended chance agglomerations produced by time + luck.

Obstacle? Or shortcut?
Obstacle, because spiritual progress does not occur in the afterlife state.


So, moving from square one to square two requires a body, and no progress is possible except to the living.
Correct. The only 'progress' made in the afterlife is via a reflection on the life just lived, the lessons of which are then incorporated into the intuition of the individual soul

Plumjam, that's the MATERIALISM talking!
To say that the material world has a specific purpose and usefulness is pretty much the opposite of materialism.

Easily solved. Liberate them too.
Silly.

As I say, people who pretend to believe in an afterlife still live as though they don't. Their actions are inconsistent and out of harmony with the beliefs they espouse.

And that's a good thing. If masses of people ever start really believing the mystical mumbo jumbo, it will be Jonestown on every street corner.
Anyone every accuse you of paranoia?

[bokonon]

Plumjam would seem to be a follower of Meher Baba, who declared himself to be God. That photo of the fellow who resembles Bill Cody on his profile page is a young Meher Baba.
Interesting. Any speculation about the identity of the lad in his avatar, who appears to have had a monstrous bowl of spaghetti fly onto his head?

[plumjam]

What I don't understand is, why does something have to transcend the physical to have value? I believe humans are purely physical beings. And I value human life. Where's the contradiction?

If you found out that all along your mother was an unconscious pre-programmed robot, would she have the same value to you? Would she have a bit of value, or no value?

[bokonon]

A materialist would never say bodies were essential and necessary. He/she would say they were unnecessary and non-essential; being unintended chance agglomerations produced by time + luck.
I guess I'm not a materialist, then. I've actually spent time and money to keep my body in good working order, believing that I'd be nowhere without it.

[plumjam]

Personally, I do not hold any anger or negative views toward Plumjam. I respect him for his opinions, even though I do not agree with them. In truth, I enjoy his threads and posts more than many other people who share his views.

Joobz, I have been meaning to thank you for this.
A kind word goes a long way, particularly when most of what one receives is opposition, negativity or ad hom.
I can see that in some respects you are a very wise man :D
I think we'd get along just fine in 'real life'.
:)

[bokonon]

If you found out that all along your mother was an unconscious pre-programmed robot, would she have the same value to you? Would she have a bit of value, or no value?
The same value. She brought me into the world, fed and clothed me until I was old enough to feed and clothe myself, taught me many things, and continues to express her love in a multitude of ways.

[Foster Zygote]

Precisely wrong. A materialist would never say bodies were essential and necessary. He/she would say they were unnecessary and non-essential; being unintended chance agglomerations produced by time + luck.
Incorrect.

Obstacle, because spiritual progress does not occur in the afterlife state. The only 'progress' made in the afterlife is via a reflection on the life just lived, the lessons of which are then incorporated into the intuition of the individual soul
Unevidenced assertion. Also merely one of many contradictory assertions made by various religions.

To say that the material world has a specific purpose and usefulness is pretty much the opposite of materialism.
Incorrect. The universe has whatever purpose we have evolved to define it as, and its usefulness to us is rather obvious.

[plumjam]

The same value. She brought me into the world, fed and clothed me until I was old enough to feed and clothe myself, taught me many things, and continues to express her love in a multitude of ways.

if she is unconscious to what extent is it love?

[godless dave]

If you found out that all along your mother was an unconscious pre-programmed robot, would she have the same value to you?

Probably not. But again, that has nothing to with with spirituality or ontology. My mother, a purely physical, material being, is conscious.

[Foster Zygote]

Interesting. Any speculation about the identity of the lad in his avatar, who appears to have had a monstrous bowl of spaghetti fly onto his head?

I suspect it is merely another of the jokes he likes to crack to evade uncomfortable points or questions. When he first arrived here he was told so often and by so many that his arguments were based on straw men that he chose to make a joke of it rather than correct his errors. Being told "that isn't actually what we believe" doesn't seem to be what he wants to read.

"But I spent ever so much time and effort crafting this straw man, and it's so fun to knock down, and it makes me feel ever so clever. I think I'll just go about telling you what you believe, even if you insist that I am almost perfectly wrong."

[godless dave]

Precisely wrong. A materialist would never say bodies were essential and necessary. He/she would say they were unnecessary and non-essential; being unintended chance agglomerations produced by time + luck.

There you go again, putting words in our mouths without justification.

Why would a materialist say bodies are unnecessary and non-essential? Of course, you can't say "necessary" or "essential" without specifying for what they are essential or necessary. For being a human being, a body is definitely essential and necessary; you can't be alive without one!

[bokonon]

if she is unconscious to what extent is it love?
The same extent as it was before. In your unlikely scenario, unconscious robot beings are obviously capable of expressing love. I guess we'd have to expand our understanding of love, rather than diminish the value of our loved ones. I wouldn't have a problem with that, would you?

[plumjam]

Probably not. But again, that has nothing to with with spirituality or ontology. My mother, a purely physical, material being, is conscious.

I don't know if you believe in determinism or not; most materialists here seem to. If you do, and people are purely physical, then your mother is indeed a pre-programmed robot.

[Foster Zygote]

I don't know if you believe in determinism or not; most materialists here seem to. If you do, and people are purely physical, then your mother is indeed a pre-programmed robot.

Well then so am I. Yet I know that I am conscious.

[plumjam]

The same extent as it was before. In your unlikely scenario, unconscious robot beings are obviously capable of expressing love. I guess we'd have to expand our understanding of love, rather than diminish the value of our loved ones. I wouldn't have a problem with that, would you?

So you actually believe that you can receive genuine love from unconscious things?
Does your teddy bear love you?

Do you fall in love while in dreamless sleep?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So you actually believe that you can receive genuine love from unconscious things?
Does your teddy bear love you?

Do you fall in love while in dreamless sleep?
What is your definition of "unconscious" in this discussion?

[bokonon]

So you actually believe that you can receive genuine love from unconscious things?
I believe I receive genuine love from my mother. Your claim that she has been discovered to be an unconscious robot doesn't change that. It suggests that I too am an unconscious robot, so my mother's value to me is as undiminished as my own value to myself.

New label, same soup.

[plumjam]

What is your definition of "unconscious" in this discussion?

:D that's a ....well... an unusual question

how about "not conscious" ?

[plumjam]

I believe I receive genuine love from my mother. Your claim that she has been discovered to be an unconscious robot doesn't change that. It suggests that I too am an unconscious robot, so my mother's value to me is as undiminished as my own value to myself.

New label, same soup.

no, in the thought experiment you would have to be conscious, in order to know that your mother was in fact an unconscious robot

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

:D that's a ....well... an unusual question

how about "not conscious" ?

Fine, then define what you mean by "conscious" in this discussion, so we can understand what you mean by !conscious.

[godless dave]

I don't know if you believe in determinism or not; most materialists here seem to. If you do, and people are purely physical, then your mother is indeed a pre-programmed robot.

You understand determinism about as well as you understand materialism. Even if I did believe in complete determinism (which from quantum mechanics we already know isn't the case), that would not make my mother preprogrammed. A completely deterministic system can both make decisions and be unpredictable.

Determinism would also not negate that she is conscious and has feelings - both of which are entirely compatible with materialism.

[bokonon]

no, in the thought experiment you would have to be conscious, in order to know that your mother was in fact an unconscious robot
Why don't you just cut to the chase, and say "in the thought experiment you would have to realize I was right, in order to know that, without an eternal soul, human beings are worthless?"

[godless dave]

My cats love me, and whether they are conscious or not depends on your defintion of consciousness. Certainly they aren't self-aware the way humans and dolphins are.

But that's beside the point. Consciousness is perfectly compatible with materialism and determinism, unconsciousness is a red herring here.

[plumjam]

Fine, then define what you mean by "conscious" in this discussion, so we can understand what you mean by !conscious.

Clint, this is funny.
I can just imagine you saying "Go ahead punk, define "conscious" in this discussion; make my day"
Conscious is (presumably) what you are now. That which allows you to be on this forum, reading this sentence, and hopefully understanding it.

It is the opposite of your experience of dreamless sleep.

If you don't "get" the above then I'm afraid I can't help you with anything at all.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

My cats love me, and whether they are conscious or not depends on your defintion of consciousness. Certainly they aren't self-aware the way humans and dolphins are.

But that's beside the point. Consciousness is perfectly compatible with materialism and determinism, unconsciousness is a red herring here.

[sidenote] Newest issue of Skeptic has an interesting article on "consciousness", defining it as (paraphrasing) "a set of behaviors"

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Clint, this is funny.
I can just imagine you saying "Go ahead punk, define "conscious" in this discussion; make my day"
Conscious is (presumably) what you are now. That which allows you to be on this forum, reading this sentence, and hopefully understanding it.
OCR software, coupled with a grammar parser meets that defn.

It is the opposite of your experience of dreamless sleep.
Dreamful(?) waking? This isn't a definition. How are we supposed to answer a question you pose regarding "unconscious"ness, if you refuse to define what you mean by it?

If you don't "get" the above then I'm afraid I can't help you with anything at all.
Keep making comments like that, and I'll start reporting your posts.

[plumjam]

Consciousness is perfectly compatible with materialism and determinism

That's a statement of faith.
I appreciate the fact that you are not a complete determinist.

If someone believes in materialism and determinism they HAVE to believe those two are compatible with consciousness... simply because not to do so would mean they had to deny the reality of their own consciousness, which would be entirely self defeating

that is not the same thing as having any evidence for those beliefs

[plumjam]

Keep making comments like that, and I'll start reporting your posts.

Really? On what grounds?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Really? On what grounds?
Stop dodging and provide some definitions.

[plumjam]

Stop dodging and provide some definitions.

I did.
But if what you really want tonight is definitions rather than interesting discussion maybe you should switch off the computer and spend a relaxing evening in the company of a reading lamp and the Oxford English Dictionary.

BTW, defining consciousness as (even if paraphrasing) 'a set of behaviours' is just hopeless. Those fluffy puppy toys that jump and wag their tails have a set of behaviours. Would it be reasonable then to attribute consciousness to them?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I did.
But if what you really want tonight is definitions rather than interesting discussion maybe you should switch off the computer and spend a relaxing evening in the company of a reading lamp and the Oxford English Dictionary.
You're the one asking for answers to questions that utilize ill-defined words.

BTW, defining consciousness as (even if paraphrasing) 'a set of behaviours' is just hopeless. Those fluffy puppy toys that jump and wag their tails have a set of behaviours. Would it be reasonable then to attribute consciousness to them?
Try reading the article before coming to a conclusion.

[plumjam]

You're the one asking for answers to questions that utilize ill-defined words.


Try reading the article before coming to a conclusion.

The point is this. YOU ARE CONSCIOUS NOW.

You don't need to look in some book or read an article to know what that is. Just as you don't need to read an article to know what pain is. If you were a person who had never experienced pain, no amount of reading books or articles about pain would help you in any way.

Let you into a secret. You know much much better what consciousness is than that article or any article could ever express.

[godless dave]

That's a statement of faith.

No, it's an observation. Brains are material. We know that. Consciousness comes from the brain; we know that too. We know that injury to the brain can cause a change in consciousness, or even destroy it altogether.

[Prometheus]

The point is this. YOU ARE CONSCIOUS NOW.

You don't need to look in some book or read an article to know what that is. Just as you don't need to read an article to know what pain is. If you were a person who had never experienced pain, no amount of reading books or articles about pain would help you in any way.

Let you into a secret. You know much much better what consciousness is than that article or any article could ever express.

You experience blood rushing through your veins every moment of every day. Do you think you understand blood diseases better than any hematologist?

[Bob Blaylock]

Well, it's up to you. What next? In the 1990s, Steve Jobs, who was one of the founders of Apple Computer, was driven out of that company, so he founded another company, which he called NeXT. That company made a computer system that, in my opinion, was years ahead of its time. Alas, it never sold very well. NeXt tried a few other things that didn't do very well either. Eventually, Apple Computer bought up what was left of NeXT, and incorporated a great deal of the NeXT operating system into what would become MacOS X. In connection with this, Steve Jobs is back as the head of Apple Computer.

[plumjam]

[QUOTE]Consciousness comes from the brain; we know that too.
Do we? Where can I find out about this?

We know that injury to the brain can cause a change in consciousness, or even destroy it altogether.
It can change or destroy the contents of consciousness (in other words mentality)
But consciousness itself, things ain't so sure.

[Foster Zygote]

I believe I receive genuine love from my mother. Your claim that she has been discovered to be an unconscious robot doesn't change that. It suggests that I too am an unconscious robot, so my mother's value to me is as undiminished as my own value to myself.

New label, same soup.

Same false dichotomy. Plumjam won't entertain the idea that consciousness could be an emergent property of matter. To him you are either a dualist and conscious, or you are a monist and an unconscious robot. As usual, his definitions serve his needs.

[Foster Zygote]

No, it's an observation. Brains are material. We know that. Consciousness comes from the brain; we know that too. We know that injury to the brain can cause a change in consciousness, or even destroy it altogether.

I've tried to engage Plumjam in a discussion of Phineas Gage on a few occasions when the relationship of consciousness to brain has come up. Unsurprisingly, he has never responded.

[plumjam]

You experience blood rushing through your veins every moment of every day. Do you think you understand blood diseases better than any hematologist?

No.
But I understand consciousness better than does a brick.

[plumjam]

In the 1990s, Steve Jobs, who was one of the founders of Apple Computer, was driven out of that company, so he founded another company, which he called NeXT. That company made a computer system that, in my opinion, was years ahead of its time. Alas, it never sold very well. NeXt tried a few other things that didn't do very well either. Eventually, Apple Computer bought up what was left of NeXT, and incorporated a great deal of the NeXT operating system into what would become MacOS X. In connection with this, Steve Jobs is back as the head of Apple Computer.

Lol :D
Thanks Bob.

I'm hoping that was intentional humour.
I don't know much about Mr Jobs. Is he an atheist and/or materialist or something else?

[Prometheus]

No.
But I understand consciousness better than does a brick.

That's a false analogy. You certainly do not understand consciousness better than a fellow conscious human who has spent a career studying the phenomenon.

[plumjam]

That's a false analogy. You certainly do not understand consciousness better than a fellow conscious human who has spent a career studying the phenomenon.

It is not consciousness they are studying.
It is the physical correlates of consciousness. Not the same things at all.

ETA: Unless they are studying consciousness from the inside, as people have been doing for thousands of years via meditation, prayer, spiritual practice etc... THAT understanding of consciousness I very much accept and respect.

[Tricky]

Treating the human individual as having a moral value that is non-reducible to their physical constituents.
If you can determine how this treatment would differ between atheists and theists, then this might be a meaningful question. But you can not and have not. If I am a moral person, then it matters not one iota whether or not I believe that everything is made of physical componants.

treating people as ends rather than means.
You mean treating them good because it is the thing that agrees with your morality or treating them good for selfish reasonns, like because you want to please God and maybe get to heaven? Yes, I agree that atheists are much less likely to care about the supernatural effects of their actions than theists. But I don't hold it against theists that their morality is self-serving. As long as they have it, I'm not particular about where it came from.

believing that people are entitled to a prima facie equality of human rights before the law, regardless of their particular physical constituents and characteristics, their membership of a particular race, nation etc..
Yes, that is very much a part of humanism. Some religions also incorporate parts of this, but it does not seem to come naturally. So many of them assume some kind of moral superiority.

that a person's moral value is not affected by that person's level of utility to the species/society.
I wasn't aware that people had an external moral value. I have always assumed that morality was an individual thing. But certainly, people have different roles in society. Thats a part of individuality too. Speaking for myself, I'm in favor of individuality.

I would not judge the individual morality of a person going simply on their ontological beliefs. If mistaken ontological beliefs become an active part of a person's morality, then yes, that person's individual morality will suffer as a result.
If you can show (by evidence) the role of ontological beliefs on a person's morality, then your statement might have some merit. So far you have not done so. You have arrogantly claimed it, thereby insulting anyone whose beliefs have a non-theistic ontology, but this carries no water here. It does make you look bad. Is that what you're trying to do?
Why you should persist in seeing this as an insult I have no idea.
Do you not think any black people should have be insulted by Bill O'Reilly's comments? Once you begin to understand this, then perhaps you will begin to understand the insulting nature of your comments.
Your ontological beliefs are not you.
Your morality is a lot closer to what you are.
As a materialist, I think that anything I believe is part of me. If I have a belief (ontological or otherwise) that is incorrect or harmful to others, then I would like to examine it.

Perhaps theists accept that external beliefs exist, but I'd like to see the evidence. Do you have any?

[Tricky]

It is not consciousness they are studying.
It is the physical correlates of consciousness. Not the same things at all.
Do you believe consciousness exists apart from the physical correlates? If the answer is "yes", then could you provide for us one example of such a consciousness which can be objectively demonstrated?

[Bob Blaylock]

I don't know much about Mr Jobs. Is he an atheist and/or materialist or something else? I don't know, nor is it relevant to my answer. I was just answering the question, “What's next?”

[plumjam]

If you can determine how this treatment would differ between atheists and theists, then this might be a meaningful question. But you can not and have not. If I am a moral person, then it matters not one iota whether or not I believe that everything is made of physical componants.


You mean treating them good because it is the thing that agrees with your morality or treating them good for selfish reasonns, like because you want to please God and maybe get to heaven? Yes, I agree that atheists are much less likely to care about the supernatural effects of their actions than theists. But I don't hold it against theists that their morality is self-serving. As long as they have it, I'm not particular about where it came from.


Yes, that is very much a part of humanism. Some religions also incorporate parts of this, but it does not seem to come naturally. So many of them assume some kind of moral superiority.


I wasn't aware that people had an external moral value. I have always assumed that morality was an individual thing. But certainly, people have different roles in society. Thats a part of individuality too. Speaking for myself, I'm in favor of individuality.


If you can show (by evidence) the role of ontological beliefs on a person's morality, then your statement might have some merit. So far you have not done so. You have arrogantly claimed it, thereby insulting anyone whose beliefs have a non-theistic ontology, but this carries no water here. It does make you look bad. Is that what you're trying to do?

Do you not think any black people should have be insulted by Bill O'Reilly's comments? Once you begin to understand this, then perhaps you will begin to understand the insulting nature of your comments.

As a materialist, I think that anything I believe is part of me. If I have a belief (ontological or otherwise) that is incorrect or harmful to others, then I would like to examine it.

Perhaps theists accept that external beliefs exist, but I'd like to see the evidence. Do you have any?

Wow. Well I was going to answer this bit by bit. But reading through it, and relating it to my post I don't think it's worth the bother.
This is because the question in my post was whether you agreed with those 4 statements, and if you did, on what grounds YOU would base those agreements.
Instead of telling me whether you agree/disagree with them you equivocate, and attempt to put the onus of the discussion back on ME.
You don't offer anything on which you might base any agreement/non-agreement you might offer, and instead you demand that it is ME who has to provide "evidence".

Well, hang on a minute.
It is me who is saying that these things are absolutely non-evidenceable (in your and most people here's definition of valid evidence).
You already knew that. So why would you be trying to put the onus on me to provide evidence?

Now I'm starting to see why you chose that name on this forum ;)

Maybe I'll simplify the question then.
Do you believe in universal and equal 'human rights'? And if so, on what grounds?

Cheers

[plumjam]

I don't know, nor is it relevant to my answer. I was just answering the question, “What's next?”

Lol :D

Bob, I'm heterosexual, but I already love you with a passion.
I look forward to any future posts of yours.
Humour is in a bit short supply on this forum.

[Foster Zygote]

Humour is in a bit short supply on this forum.

You could always tell another joke about killing children.

[plumjam]

Do you believe consciousness exists apart from the physical correlates? If the answer is "yes", then could you provide for us one example of such a consciousness which can be objectively demonstrated?

yes, the answer is 'yes' !
objective demonstration would necessitate physical correlates.
that should be obvious.

[Tricky]

Wow. Well I was going to answer this bit by bit. But reading through it, and relating it to my post I don't think it's worth the bother.
This is because the question in my post was whether you agreed with those 4 statements, and if you did, on what grounds YOU would base those agreements.
Some of the statements were nonsensical. Some were classic examples of the logical fallacy called "poisoning the well", but I tried to address them as I thought they should be. If you feel that my comments don't require a reply, then that's your choice. I know you have a lot of people clamoring for your attention.

Instead of telling me whether you agree/disagree with them you equivocate, and attempt to put the onus of the discussion back on ME.
I'm willing to discuss them, as I demonstrated. The way they are worded though does not recommend a yes/no answer though. I won't be forced into such traps.

You should stop beating your wife. Do you agree or disagree?

You don't offer anything on which you might base any agreement/non-agreement you might offer, and instead you demand that it is ME who has to provide "evidence".
Well, YOU are, after all, the one making the claims.

Well, hang on a minute.
It is me who is saying that these things are absolutely non-evidenceable (in your and most people here's definition of valid evidence).
You already knew that. So why would you be trying to put the onus on me to provide evidence?
Because it is you who are making the claims that they are true. That you continue do do so, while admitting they are non-evidenceable, says something, don't you think? I'm hoping you'll realize that. I have no evidence that you will. Call me an optimist.

Now I'm starting to see why you chose that name on this forum ;)
It was my second choice. It is a nickname based on a rhyme, not on any particular characteristics. That I share the nickname with Dick Nixon is a reason I have contemplated changing it, but in the end, I figured people would look past the name once they got to know me.

Maybe I'll simplify the question then.
Do you believe in universal and equal 'human rights'? And if so, on what grounds?
No.

The concept of "rights" is another human construct and is based on morality, which as we have demonstrated for you by numerous examples, is very relative. The fact that Jefferson made the same mistake as you does not change that. You have whatever rights are given you by the various institutions under which you live. If you are convincing enough, you may be able to change what those rights are, just as blacks and women were given the "right" to vote in the US some years back.

Based on my morality, there are numerous rights that I consider important enough to fight for, but I have no illusion that they are universal. If they were, then there would be no need to fight for them.

[Tricky]

yes, the answer is 'yes' !
objective demonstration would necessitate physical correlates.
that should be obvious.
So you believe without evidence. I am aware of such beliefs. I pay them little heed, because you can believe absolutely anything you like if you require no evidence to support your beliefs.

Why do you think your beliefs without evidence should have any more credibility than any other beliefs without evidence?

[plumjam]

]Some of the statements were nonsensical. Some were classic examples of the logical fallacy called "poisoning the well"
me in my naivety of answering questions put to me, I'm not really familiar with that concept.

, but I tried to address them as I thought they should be. If you feel that my comments don't require a reply, then that's your choice. I know you have a lot of people clamoring for your attention.

yeah, my intuition tells me this is a bit honest but not entirely honest, though I can't be entirely sure.

I'm willing to discuss them, as I demonstrated. The way they are worded though does not recommend a yes/no answer though. I won't be forced into such traps.
well hang on, they were not really traps, I mean, I gave you four options (which were more or less saying the same or very similar things) yet you still equivocated

You should stop beating your wife. Do you agree or disagree?
I agree that some idiots ask those type of questions on this forum. Thankfully neither you nor I.


Well, YOU are, after all, the one making the claims.
I don't think so. In this conversation I was asking questions.


Because it is you who are making the claims that they are true. That you continue do do so, while admitting they are non-evidenceable, says something, don't you think? I'm hoping you'll realize that. I have no evidence that you will. Call me an optimist.

Well fine. So you (at least do not disagree to a proposition) admit the possibility that some propositions of immense value are not, (in your definition of what is legitmately evidenceable) admissible.
You and I do not share similar views on what is admissible or unadmissible evidence. For that you have your education/indoctrination ;) to blame.

It was my second choice. It is a nickname based on a rhyme, not on any particular characteristics.
now my mind is going.. hicky? ;)

The concept of "rights" is another human construct and is based on morality, which as we have demonstrated for you by numerous examples, is very relative.
which "numerous examples" are these?

The fact that Jefferson made the same mistake as you does not change that.
Ok, so for purposes of argument Jefferson was a good guy, but Plumjam from the UK on the JREF forum was not ;)

You have whatever rights are given you by the various institutions under which you live. If you are convincing enough, you may be able to change what those rights are, just as blacks and women were given the "right" to vote in the US some years back.
I bet those clever Jews, if they had been given a floor, and time, would have been much more persuasive than the blacks and the women.
None of which is relevant, really.

Based on my morality, there are numerous rights that I consider important enough to fight for, but I have no illusion that they are universal. If they were, then there would be no need to fight for them.
Well, this (honestly) is a bit mysterious to me. Care to explain what you mean?

[Roadtoad]

Okay, it's now official. This has become a Pet Rock thread.

Years ago, when the Pet Rock was big on the scene, it had instructions on how to teach your pet rock to do tricks. For rolling over, you found a hill, told the rock to roll over, and gave it a push. This could be done several times in a day. In all likelihood, you'd get tired before your pet rock did.

I'm tired. Bye.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

L

>> SNIP >>

Humour is in a bit short supply on this forum.

Oh, the irony!

[plumjam]

Oh, the irony!

Well, my dear chubby cheeks, humour definitely is in short supply in this forum. I'm still trying to work out why that may be.
As an agglomeration of human beings (maybe I'm inherently biased cos I'm from the north of England and from here come the World's best humorists... I don't know...) I'd say that the average person on the JREF forum has either a somewhat impoverished sense of humour or they have a great sense of humour but for some strange reason to do with skepticism don't want to put that great sense of humour out into a public arena

[articulett]

Oh, the irony!

I know... I think there are brilliantly funny people on this forum...

It's sad really... folks like plumjum provide an endless source of amusement for us by being a catalyst for the clever repartee of others but they lack the wit to appreciate the merriment they provide.

Ah well, they imagine themselves as being good for something... and I agree... they ARE good for amusing skeptics.

[plumjam]

I know... I think there are brilliantly funny people on this forum...

It's sad really... folks like plumjum provide an endless source of amusement for us by being a catalyst for the clever repartee of others but they lack the wit to appreciate the merriment they provide.

Ah well, they imagine themselves as being good for something... and I agree... they ARE good for amusing skeptics.

Arti, my secret lover, who on this forum would you describe as brilliantly funny?
At the moment I can think of... well,... no-one brilliantly funny... maybe 3 or 4 people 'quite funny'.

[CapelDodger]

I know... I think there are brilliantly funny people on this forum...

It's sad really... folks like plumjum provide an endless source of amusement for us by being a catalyst for the clever repartee of others but they lack the wit to appreciate the merriment they provide.

Fortunately, plumjam isn't the target audience. That would be a hard room to work.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Well, my dear chubby cheeks, humour definitely is in short supply in this forum. I'm still trying to work out why that may be.
As an agglomeration of human beings (maybe I'm inherently biased cos I'm from the north of England and from here come the World's best humorists... I don't know...) I'd say that the average person on the JREF forum has either a somewhat impoverished sense of humour or they have a great sense of humour but for some strange reason to do with skepticism don't want to put that great sense of humour out into a public arena

Well my dear spaghetti head all I say is:

Oh the IRONY!

[CapelDodger]

Probably not. But again, that has nothing to with with spirituality or ontology. My mother, a purely physical, material being, is conscious.

And she knows what you've been up to. Don't ask me how mothers do that, but they do.

[plumjam]

Well my dear spaghetti head all I say is:

Oh the IRONY!

unfortunately that was not funny, thus adding strength to my argument

next time perhaps you should only come in when you have something genuinely humourous (I would not deny it)
Then you could prove me wrong.

[CapelDodger]

Well my dear spaghetti head all I say is:

Oh the IRONY!

Some kind of escalation there. What's the next step, a YouTube link? You should think about these things; plumjam's clearly in it for the long-term, like a quality karate training-pad.

[CapelDodger]

unfortunately that was not funny, thus adding strength to my argument

You're a bit free with the "thus" there. Some of us thought it amusing, and saw the same irony.

next time perhaps you should only come in when you have something genuinely humourous (I would not deny it)
Then you could prove me wrong.

You might not deny it, but your chances of recognising it are slim to zero.

This is bordering on bullying by now, what with there just being the one of you and all the rest of us, but what the hey? You've shown no sign of thinking kindly of the likes of me, so screw you.

[ThatSoundAgain]

This is bordering on bullying by now, what with there just being the one of you and all the rest of us, but what the hey? You've shown no sign of thinking kindly of the likes of me, so screw you.

Do not despair, plumjam has the objective standard of humour on his side!

[FSM]

Thank FSM I got here in time for the Comedy Smackdown...

Ooo ooo... I hope the Godless Team picks me. And I hope I don't get picked last, like in high school gym class.

Here's just a small sampling of my stylings for those looking to recruit me for the Team:

Termite walks into a bar, says "Hey, is the bartender here?"

Pa- CHOW. Pwnd. Totally.

I have SO many more where that came from. Will it be like that Charlie Daniel's song "Devil Went Down To Georgia," and if we win, we get the soul of the challenger? Because that would be cool. I never won someone's soul with comedy before.

[FSM]

And also, I call skins.

[Silentknight]

Okay, it's now official. This has become a Pet Rock thread.

Years ago, when the Pet Rock was big on the scene, it had instructions on how to teach your pet rock to do tricks. For rolling over, you found a hill, told the rock to roll over, and gave it a push. This could be done several times in a day. In all likelihood, you'd get tired before your pet rock did.

I'm tired. Bye.

Something tells me that a certain individual would rather spend most of his time attempting to push the Pet Rock up to the top of the hill, only to have it roll all the way back down to his disappointment. Not one to give up, he'd push the Pet Rock back up towards the top of the hill again, but with the same results as last time. All the atheists would try to inform him that this is due to a fundamental force of nature known as "gravity" that acts on all matter, but he would just sneer at them and mock their inability to look beyond the materialistic world.

[plumjam]

Do not despair, plumjam has the objective standard of humour on his side!

yeah, plus just being funnier
with the added advantage of not finding such obvious pleasure in attacking individuals ;)

[FSM]

Um, 'bar TENDER here'... see, he's a termite...

[FSM]

First, a termite going to a bar is just funny. It just is. Because termites aren't known to drink heavily.

[FSM]

Second, it's a TALKING termite, see? What's not funny about that? Nothing, I say.

[FSM]

I'm sensing that there are no LOLs, LMFAOs or :Ds because you might be afraid that I will win your soul. Really, I'm just playing for bragging rights, really. I'll return your soul, I promise.

[Mobyseven]

I got to the end of the thread and was greeted with FSM's little series of posts that had me laughing a little too loud.

Is there a 'We Love FSM' club?

[plumjam]

You're a bit free with the "thus" there. Some of us thought it amusing, and saw the same irony.



You might not deny it, but your chances of recognising it are slim to zero.

This is bordering on bullying by now, what with there just being the one of you and all the rest of us, but what the hey? You've shown no sign of thinking kindly of the likes of me, so screw you.

coincidentally enough, on a completely unrelated thread me and another were discussing what a charmless sneerer you are.
maybe you can work on that. I mean, I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.
I've read probably a few dozen of your posts.
You obviously have some intelligence, so maybe cut back on the negativity and the trying to appear so very clever... allow what humour you have to come to the fore... and hey, you'll probably be laaaarfinnn
good luck

[FSM]

Well, the coup de grace is the pun, really. Because he isn't REALLY asking to speak to the bartender. NO. He is not. He is asking if the bar IS tender enough to eat. It's the pun that really brings it on home, punches you right in the chest with a giant fist of comedy delight.

[FSM]

And HELLO my Moby! It's wonderful to see you around!


Hey, have I told you this GREAT joke I know? Believe it or not, it's about a termite...

[Olowkow]

So...the bartender really wasn't there? and the termite just left?:D without a beer?
Good one...

[ThatSoundAgain]

yeah, plus just being funnier
with the added advantage of not finding such obvious pleasure in attacking individuals ;)

For the record, if what I said was an attempt at sarcasm, note that it was a topical dig at your position, not your person. And yes, you can be funny.






Sometimes even on purpuse. ;)

[FSM]

If you imagine that the bartender WAS there, wearing nothing but a tiny pink tutu with a spider monkey named 'Elmer' sitting on his shoulder, it's even funnier.

And maybe he gave the termite a beer afterward, you know, for being so witty and stuff... So it could have a happy ending, even.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

unfortunately that was not funny, thus adding strength to my argument

next time perhaps you should only come in when you have something genuinely humourous (I would not deny it)
Then you could prove me wrong.

snicker

[plumjam]

For the record, if what I said was an attempt at sarcasm, note that it was a topical dig at your position, not your person. And yes, you can be funny.






Sometimes even on purpuse. ;)

thanks, ThatSoundAgain, I will make a mental note that you are definitely not a bast**d ;)

[Hokulele]

Yay! This thread is interesting again, thank FSM.

[joobz]

Yay! This thread is interesting again, thank FSM.
I notice that your avatar has changed. Is there some occasion?

[Hokulele]

I notice that your avatar has changed. Is there some occasion?


Infidel!


(In case you were serious, head on down to the "Real football" thread in Sports. ;))

[plumjam]

Infidel!


(In case you were serious, head on down to the "Real football" thread in Sports. ;))

I'm English, but I would guess New England Patriots?

btw, in my part of England the first two syllables of your name mean a big greener

[joobz]

Infidel!


(In case you were serious, head on down to the "Real football" thread in Sports. ;))
It's my passive aggresive attack against my next few days being wasted with something I don't care about.

At work:
X:"Man, did you see the game."
joobz:"No, I don't like football much, my wife does though. You should talk to her."
X:"Oh, well it was [insert random modifier]"
joobz:"Hmm"
X:"Did you see those commercials?"
joobz:"No, I wasn't watching the game so..."
X:"Yeah, those commercials are just [insert random insulting modifier]"
{enter Y}
Y:"what you guys talking about?"
X:"The game last night"
Y:"Wasn't it so [insert random modifier]"
joobz:"i'm gonna go now"
Y:"Joobz, but you had to have at least seen the commercials?"
joobz:"no, I wasn't watching th"
Y:"Yeah, well those commercials were [insert random insulting modifier]"
X:"Oh yeah, I know.."
Y:" joobz, did you catch the half time show."
joobz:"I hate you"
Y:"It was just [insert negative modifier]"
X:"I thought it was [insert random insulting modifier]"
Joobz:"I'm going to stab a cat, bye"
Y:"And TeamX won, I do(don't) believe it. What's your take Joobz"
joobz:"seriously, I think I need to ki"
{enter Z}
Z:"you talking about the game?!?"
{At this point I give up and start parroting back things X,Y,Z say}
joobz:"Yeah, TeamX won, I do(don't) believe it."
Z:"I totally agree"
joobz:"And those commercials were[insert random insulting modifier]"
X,Y,Z:"Exactly, Ugh"
Joobz:"and the half time, jeez, it's just too [insert random insulting modifier]"
X,Y,Z:"yeah, you know it, Joobz.."
joobz:"Well, I have to go and stick needles in my scrotum. Bye!"
X,Y,Z:"Bye!"

[plumjam]

Joobz, maybe it would be easier for you at work if you make out like you're a blind idiot savant whose blindness inexplicably has no effect whatsoever on your ability to do your job :D

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I'm English, but I would guess New England Patriots?

btw, in my part of England the first two syllables of your name here meant a big greener

Anyone care to start the countdown?

For FSM only --

Two strings go into a bar and ask for a beer. The bartender looks at them and asks, "aren't you strings?" "Yes," they reply and the bartender says, "we don't serve your kind in here!"

The two strings go back out side and one says, "I really want a beer and I have an idea." And he ruffles up his top end and then makes a knot in it.

When he goes back in the bar and asks for a beer the bartender looks at him suspiciously and asks, "aren't you one of those strings?"

"No", says the string, "I
asked for a 10 inch pianist."
No. Wait. Wrong joke.

What he really says is, "I
'm afraid knot."

[Hokulele]

It's my passive aggresive attack against my next few days being wasted with something I don't care about.


You're not my husband secretly posting as I am sitting next to him, are you? *Shifty eyes*

Have your wife make you up some index cards, and you can just flash the appropriate one duing the conversation while you get some real work done. Alternatively, you can use the discussion as an excuse to avoid doing real work for the next 4 days. :p

[rocketdodger]

It is not consciousness they are studying.
It is the physical correlates of consciousness. Not the same things at all.

ETA: Unless they are studying consciousness from the inside, as people have been doing for thousands of years via meditation, prayer, spiritual practice etc... THAT understanding of consciousness I very much accept and respect.

This thread just gets better and better.

So I guess when you have a headache you pray and meditate it away, instead of taking a Tylenol or Aspirin like the rest of the developed world, eh plumjam?

[Mobyseven]

And HELLO my Moby! It's wonderful to see you around!


Hey, have I told you this GREAT joke I know? Believe it or not, it's about a termite...

Termites are a sensitive topic for me. My great-grandtermite was an alcoholic.

[rocketdodger]

In reality hardly any atheist materialists at all will live morally in harmony with their ontological beliefs. Instead they live their moral lives almost always in harmony with the ontological beliefs of a theist.
By this I mean that atheists believe in things like:

I just have a very low opinion of people that continue lying and propagating misinformation simply because they can -- it isn't a very moral thing to do, ya know?

treating the human individual as having a moral value that is non-reducible to their physical constituents

What a silly lie. If this monumentally ignorant proposition were true, then people wouldn't give paintings more value than their pigment, give sandcastles more value than their sand, give a cd more value than its plastic, give a picture of their wife more value than the photo paper, give their dog more value than its flesh, give books more value than the ink they are printed with, and last but not least (this one is personal) give computer programs more value than the bits encoding them.

Plumjam has been spreading this lie since the OP. Where does materialism state that all entities/phenomena greater than the sum of their parts are not to be taken as such?. It doesn't, and any suggestion to the contrary is a lie.

treating people as ends rather than means

What a silly lie. Counterexample -- As a materialist I know that interaction with other conscious beings is by far the most rewarding endeavor in life.

believing that people are entitled to a prima facie equality of human rights before the law, regardless of their particular physical constituents and characteristics, their membership of a particular race, nation etc..

What a silly lie. Hardly anyone believes this, and certainly not most theists. Seriously, what planet does plumjam live on?

Those few that do have arrived at this conclusion because of empathy, which is a feature of intelligence, not "theism." It is quite a simple process, but I feel plumjam doesn't "get it" yet, so I will walk through an example.

1) I am a person.
2) Joe is a person.
3) They are torturing Joe. He is making screams.
4) When I scream like that, it usually is because I hurt.
5) By 3) and 4), Joe is probably hurting.
6) By 1) and 2), whatever Joe is feeling I could possibly feel.
7) This idea scares me.
8) Therefore I don't want anyone to hurt like Joe was. Ever.

that a person's moral value is not affected by that person's level of utility to the species/society

What a silly lie. Hardly anyone believes this, and certainly not most theists. Seriously, what planet does plumjam live on?

Those few that do have arrived at this conclusion because of empathy, which is a feature of intelligence, not "theism." It is quite a simple process, but I feel plumjam doesn't "get it" yet, so I will walk through an example.

1) I am a person.
2) Jane is a person.
3) Sometimes I am useful, but also sometimes I like being not-useful because it gives me time to do my own things.
4) Jane is never useful.
5) The bosses make Jane live in sh-- because she isn't useful.
6) By 1), 2), and 3), I might be forced to live in sh--.
7) That idea scares me.
8) Therefore, I don't want anyone to have to live in sh--. Ever.

The above things are all, as it were, faith statements that can, in no way find support within the ontological beliefs of a materialist atheist. Put simply, there is no empirical evidence to support such statements.

What a silly lie. I just provided clear examples of support for those statements within the ontological beliefs of a materialist atheist. Care to try again?

They are, in fact, faith statements which assert that the most important aspect of a human being's existence lies beyond the merely physical. It is a spiritual view of man. And one shared by AFAIK all forms of theism.
Without an extra-physical view of man the above statements would be gibberish.


What a silly lie.

Materialists assert that the most important aspect of a human being's existence is the emergent property that we are much, much, much more than the sum of our parts. It is the pigments making the painting, the sand making the castle, the binary making the software, taken to the most wonderful extreme we know of.

What can give more value to human life than the fact that it is so rare and unlikely in the universe? What can give more value to an individual than the awesomeness of their mind compared to the rest of the matter in the universe?

What can give more value to inter-human relationship than the fact that we exist only here and now and will be gone forever in only a few years? What can give more value to kindness than the fact that if we are not we will never, ever have another chance?

Plumjam is right about once thing -- without an extra-physical view of man it would all be gibberish. Its too bad he continually lies about theism being the only source of an extra-physical view.

[blobru]

...
Plumjam is right about once thing -- without an extra-physical view of man it would all be gibberish. Its too bad he continually lies about theism being the only source of an extra-physical view.

Actually, the whole OP, which I originally took to be trolling, is right on target. Sincere apologies for any shrill sarcasm heretofore. :shy:

Plumjam's argument:

God exists.
God is the source of morality.
Only theists share in that source.
But atheists are moral too (sort of).
Therefore, atheists are theists.
Contradiction!

He's right, you know...

How do we resolve this contradiction?

Well, one way would be to convince all atheists to admit to theism. That seems to have been the thrust of this thread, the source of the imagined insults ("when an atheist acts morally, he is really a theist...", etc.), and the reason it has gone on for almost 30 pages.

Okay. Let's assume for a second that another 30 pages, or 300, or 3000, aren't going to make any difference, that atheists are in fact, subjectively and objectively, not theists. And that in spite of this, atheists are moral, having tapped into some mysterious pre-divine source for their morality -- (humanity, maybe?)

Where does that leave us? We've still got that nagging contradiction to fix. What do you do when an argument leads to a contradiction again?

Oh yeah. Negate the premiss. Which was? "God exists".

Already done (that was easy!)

So this thread, against all expectations, it turns out is the absolute best proof we have God doesn't exist since the Scopes monkey trial.

Thanks Plumjam. :)

ETA: (& Go Giants!)

[FSM]

Termites are a sensitive topic for me. My great-grandtermite was an alcoholic.

That's strange because they don't tend to drink.

However, I must apologize for the insensitivity of the joke. That's the problem with cutting edge comedy. You're always bound to offend.


And Gord:


heehheeehehehe afraid - knot.


Gord's on the Godless Humor Team with me! Together we shall rule the world.

[Mobyseven]

That's strange because they don't tend to drink.

Well of course they don't. They're genetically predisposed to alcoholism.

[Foster Zygote]

I'm sensing that there are no LOLs, LMFAOs or :Ds because you might be afraid that I will win your soul. Really, I'm just playing for bragging rights, really. I'll return your soul, I promise.

I'm afraid that in order to compete with Plumjam's objectively superior humor you will need to graduate to a higher level of humor. To show you what a formidable comedian you're up against and why you simply cannot compete, consider the following:

In a thread about the deaths of children, in which I had already just discussed the death of the two year old son of a JREF member who was posting here when I first arrived, Randfan (sorely missed by me) remarked acerbically that "God seems to have a real hard-on for killing children". No mere termite jokes for Plumjam. On this occasion he showed himself to be the master humorist that he is by responding to Randfan with the following:









Wait for it...














"I thought it was just me.:D"

His smiley, not mine.

[Foster Zygote]

Actually, the whole OP, which I originally took to be trolling, is right on target. Sincere apologies for any shrill sarcasm heretofore. :shy:

Plumjam's argument:

God exists.
God is the source of morality.
Only theists share in that source.
But atheists are moral too (sort of).
Therefore, atheists are theists.
Contradiction!

He's right, you know...

How do we resolve this contradiction?

Well, one way would be to convince all atheists to admit to theism. That seems to have been the thrust of this thread, the source of the imagined insults ("when an atheist acts morally, he is really a theist...", etc.), and the reason it has gone on for almost 30 pages.

Okay. Let's assume for a second that another 30 pages, or 300, or 3000, aren't going to make any difference, that atheists are in fact, subjectively and objectively, not theists. And that in spite of this, atheists are moral, having tapped into some mysterious pre-divine source for their morality -- (humanity, maybe?)

Where does that leave us? We've still got that nagging contradiction to fix. What do you do when an argument leads to a contradiction again?

Oh yeah. Negate the premiss. Which was? "God exists".

Already done (that was easy!)

So this thread, against all expectations, it turns out is the absolute best proof we have God doesn't exist since the Scopes monkey trial.

Thanks Plumjam. :)

ETA: (& Go Giants!)

Nominated.

[FSM]

I'm afraid that in order to compete with Plumjam's objectively superior humor you will need to graduate to a higher level of humor. To show you what a formidable comedian you're up against and why you simply cannot compete, consider the following:

In a thread about the deaths of children, in which I had already just discussed the death of the two year old son of a JREF member who was posting here when I first arrived, Randfan (sorely missed by me) remarked acerbically that "God seems to have a real hard-on for killing children". No mere termite jokes for Plumjam. On this occasion he showed himself to be the master humorist that he is by responding to Randfan with the following:
Wait for it...

"I thought it was just me.:D"

His smiley, not mine.

I'm confused: maybe his brand of highbrow humor has passed right over my undersized, humorless, heathen head, but did he mean that:

a. Plum also has a hard-on for killing children, or
b. God also has a general hard on for Plum, or
c. Plum has a hard on for killing God, or
d. Plum has a hard on for God in general, or,
e. He was responding to something else that was said earlier completely unrelated to God's Hard On, or
f. Something else that I would never want to understand.

Honestly, I find all possibilities other than choice (e) disturbing, even if there's some trolling going on.


Also, great post Blobby. As usual. :)

[Radrook]

Okay, it's now official. This has become a Pet Rock thread.

Years ago, when the Pet Rock was big on the scene, it had instructions on how to teach your pet rock to do tricks. For rolling over, you found a hill, told the rock to roll over, and gave it a push. This could be done several times in a day. In all likelihood, you'd get tired before your pet rock did.

I'm tired. Bye.


Funny, but as far as I can recall, my pet rock learned to do all those things and my pet rock got tired before I did. : )

[Big Les]

yeah, plus just being funnier
with the added advantage of not finding such obvious pleasure in attacking individuals ;)

It seems to me that you find great pleasure in doing just that. I mean, look at this post, for example:

yeah, plus just being funnier
with the added advantage of not finding such obvious pleasure in attacking individuals ;)

See what I mean?

[plumjam]

It seems to me that you find great pleasure in doing just that. I mean, look at this post, for example:



See what I mean?

I think you missed the joke

[FSM]

I think points should be taken off in the Comedy Smackdown: The Godless vs. Theists if nobody gets the joke.

And that's really the beauty of the termite joke: accessibility. Who doesn't get talking termites? Nobody's asking if anybody has a hard on for killing termites- nobody's confused. Everyone's just still skating on that HIGH you get from belly laughing for two days straight.

[godless dave]

Do we? Where can I find out about this?

A college-level neurobiology textbook. It's kind of old news.

[CapelDodger]

Second, it's a TALKING termite, see? What's not funny about that? Nothing, I say.

It'd be funnier if the termite was Jewish, and his mother was there asking the question.

[CapelDodger]

IAnd that's really the beauty of the termite joke: accessibility. Who doesn't get talking termites? Nobody's asking if anybody has a hard on for killing termites- nobody's confused. Everyone's just still skating on that HIGH you get from belly laughing for two days straight.

On that evidence, I'd characterise you as an easy room to work :).

[nzric]

plumjam. Animals show altruism. what you call "moral theist" behaviour is a survival mechanism that is useful for a social population. Oh sorry, I forgot, I suppose animals embody the spirit of the Almighty so "of course they'd show altruism."

Ok then. Let's see... I am aware of the world around me. I can't see any clear difference between myself and others so statistically I should assume that others have the same individual awareness that I do, rather than being "pre-programmed robots".

I'm a conscious animal. If I choose to stay alive I have only a few priorities, which boil down to increasing my comfort/pleasure. I can choose to eat healthy which makes me feel better, or take a cushy job which gives me the ability to purchase things that increase my comfort/pleasure, or do a sport which gives me an adrenalin rush. If I relate to people I should treat them in a way that's most likely to increase my own comfort level. I could be a b*****d and go for the short gain, but lying and deceit takes a lot of time and effort and there is enough evidence to show that it's more likely to backfire.

It is much more helpful to treat others the way I would expect to be treated (I think that's a quote?) because, statistically, I'm more likely to get the same in return. Not always but often. This is a lesson that even the dumbest monkey or feral dog learns very early in life.

This is reinforced by the fact that as social animals, we are physiologically programmed to take pleasure in simply increasing others' comfort/pleasure. Apart from the obvious way, some examples boil down to being intelligent enough to live vicariously through other people's experience, to feeling more comfortable around people who display positive signals/body language, the need everyone has (to different degrees) for adoration/adulation, which comes when someone has a positive view of you.

The society I live in puts restraints on what I can do to increase my own comfort level (different sets of rules for every country/society). I choose to obey these rules and because I have the most education/experience in this structure, these are the set of rules that often seem to make the most "sense" to me. I'm also fortunate enough not to have been born a "minority" or to live in a social (& most often religious) system which treats certain groups as second class citizens. Therefore I see no clear benefit of changing the way I view the world or the social system/rules I live under to give myself a "better chance".

So where's the theism in all of the above??

[plumjam]

plumjam. Animals show altruism. what you call "moral theist" behaviour is a survival mechanism that is useful for a social population. Oh sorry, I forgot, I suppose animals embody the spirit of the Almighty so "of course they'd show altruism."

Ok then. Let's see... I am aware of the world around me. I can't see any clear difference between myself and others so statistically I should assume that others have the same individual awareness that I do, rather than being "pre-programmed robots".

I'm a conscious animal. If I choose to stay alive I have only a few priorities, which boil down to increasing my comfort/pleasure. I can choose to eat healthy which makes me feel better, or take a cushy job which gives me the ability to purchase things that increase my comfort/pleasure, or do a sport which gives me an adrenalin rush. If I relate to people I should treat them in a way that's most likely to increase my own comfort level. I could be a b*****d and go for the short gain, but lying and deceit takes a lot of time and effort and there is enough evidence to show that it's more likely to backfire.

It is much more helpful to treat others the way I would expect to be treated (I think that's a quote?) because, statistically, I'm more likely to get the same in return. Not always but often. This is a lesson that even the dumbest monkey or feral dog learns very early in life.

This is reinforced by the fact that as social animals, we are physiologically programmed to take pleasure in simply increasing others' comfort/pleasure. Apart from the obvious way, some examples boil down to being intelligent enough to live vicariously through other people's experience, to feeling more comfortable around people who display positive signals/body language, the need everyone has (to different degrees) for adoration/adulation, which comes when someone has a positive view of you.

The society I live in puts restraints on what I can do to increase my own comfort level (different sets of rules for every country/society). I choose to obey these rules and because I have the most education/experience in this structure, these are the set of rules that often seem to make the most "sense" to me. I'm also fortunate enough not to have been born a "minority" or to live in a social (& most often religious) system which treats certain groups as second class citizens. Therefore I see no clear benefit of changing the way I view the world or the social system/rules I live under to give myself a "better chance".

So where's the theism in all of the above??

No theism, because you're clearly not a theist. Instead there is a massive amount of evolutionist/naturalistic faith. (on your part)

On the part I bolded.. this seems just like consequentialism. In other words, if you knew that in some situations you could be lying and deceitful and get away with it.. and you did that, then there is no rationale available from your point of view to say that what you did was wrong.
In that direction lies complete immorality.
I very much doubt that lying/deceit has in any way been shown to be a material disadvantage to the individual in life. Look at the neo-conservatives. None of them lack access to material resources. Look at dictators. Look at lawyers, who effectively lie on regular occasions and make a very nice living out of it. Look at slick salesmen, marketeers. Look at the mafia. Look at tabloid journalists. Look at the whole Public Relations / Propaganda industry.. which subsists on making things seem better than they actually are. These are not people lacking in access to resources. From the materialistic/naturalistic point of view they do a lot better than the average honest Joe who does a non-lying tiring morally decent job in a factory, or whatever.

However, I'd say that usually that average Joe will have a clearer conscience, and sleep better at night. Good for him.

[Belz...]

They are, in fact, faith statements which assert that the most important aspect of a human being's existence lies beyond the merely physical. It is a spiritual view of man. And one shared by AFAIK all forms of theism.
Without an extra-physical view of man the above statements would be gibberish.

There is nothing beyond the physical. The above statements ARE gibberish.

So, folks. You may be ontological atheists, but you are all (hopefully and thankfully) moral theists.

I don't believe in the supernatural; and this includes gods. Ergo, I am not a theist, and that, by definition, makes me an a-theist.

[Belz...]

treating the human individual as having a moral value that is non-reducible to their physical constituents

Of course it is.

treating people as ends rather than means

Everything is an end in and of itself.

believing that people are entitled to a prima facie equality of human rights before the law, regardless of their particular physical constituents and characteristics, their membership of a particular race, nation etc..

Circular definition.

that a person's moral value is not affected by that person's level of utility to the species/society

True. Why would it ?

well, I've already explained this 3 or 4 times. The ontology is out of harmony with the morality. The ontology, being a set of beliefs, exists at a more superficial level of the individual. Morality, being deeper than ontological belief is more primary, and the problems only start when mistaken ontological beliefs (such as materialism) formulate themselves into (consequently erroneous) moral systems, which are imposed via political power upon the individual conscience.

English, please.

[Belz...]

If you found out that all along your mother was an unconscious pre-programmed robot, would she have the same value to you? Would she have a bit of value, or no value?

if she is unconscious to what extent is it love?

So you actually believe that you can receive genuine love from unconscious things?
Does your teddy bear love you?

Do you fall in love while in dreamless sleep?

no, in the thought experiment you would have to be conscious, in order to know that your mother was in fact an unconscious robot

Plum, you seem to be genuinely confused by the subject at hand. When I realised that (determinism + random) made free will impossible, what did that change about my life ? Nothing.

[Belz...]

That's a statement of faith.

If someone believes in materialism and determinism they HAVE to believe those two are compatible with consciousness... simply because not to do so would mean they had to deny the reality of their own consciousness, which would be entirely self defeating

that is not the same thing as having any evidence for those beliefs

But we DO have evidence, Plum. In fact, we have no evidence, whatsoever, that the consciousness can survive without the brain. We DO know, however, that when the brain is inactive, consciousness ceases to exist.

That sounds pretty certain to me.

You don't seem to know much about the facts, here.

[Belz...]

yes, the answer is 'yes' !
objective demonstration would necessitate physical correlates.
that should be obvious.

Of course, if this non-physical "consciousness" you seem to believe in exists, and it doesn't correlate with the physical, then it cannot, by definition, sense the physical or interract with it in any way. It is, therefore, quite useless to us.

[ThatSoundAgain]

No theism, because you're clearly not a theist. Instead there is a massive amount of evolutionist/naturalistic faith. (on your part)

The "faith" part is debatable, but no matter; it has been demonstrated many times that there are alternate explanations for morality that do not invoke supernatural entities and are therefore:

More probable (per Occam) and
Debatable, that is, we can talk about them at all. Supernaturally based ones invariably devolves into "is not" / "is too".


Furthermore, one doesn't need to know for certain where they come from to demonstrate that morals are necessarily subjective as, I'll do below:

What is considered just and moral change between individuals and cultures. You've been handwaving this away whenever it's mentioned, but the fact remains. I'll reiterate my examples of the human sacrifice in pre-Columbian cultures, the infanticide-as-population-control of Scandinavia of old, and throw in, say, the fact that killing other humans is considered wrong, except when it's not (wars, death penalty, euthanasia). You've had plenty of other examples.

Now, since practitioners of these things have considered themselves doing good, as evidenced by the fact that these practices went on for at least several centuries, and for a lot of the examples you've been provided with are defended as "god's will" - we can conclude that people of opposite moral observations are equally sincere in believing they're right.

This shows that if there is an objective moral standard, it distinguishes itself by not being perfectly accessible. That means that whenever there are differences in people's moral perception, the standard is not able to resolve it, since everyone will claim they're objectively more moral, and there's no way to verify who's right.

So, whether you believe that your conscience is objectively right or not, differences will be there. The only way to resolve these differences is to negotiate them - avoid them, debate them, fight over them. This is what's going on in the world, and has been for quite a while. Even people who claim they're objectively right conduct themselves as everyone else. They simply have to.

To recap:

Moral differences do exist and have through history.
People who have opposite views of morality consider themselves equally morally right.
Objective morality (should it exist) is therefore not perfectly accessible.
Objective morality (should it exist) is therefore irrelevant.


What remains is a philosophical exercise of pondering irrelevant concepts.

And finally, plumjam, here's a bit of advice for you: If your aim is to promote your particular view of morals and influence others to adopt it, you might want to work on your strategy. Don't come in here telling us we're all secretly like you, and that our consciences should tell us the exact same things as yours. Not to mention that your taste in food and music is superior to everyone else's. We're perfectly willing to debate what is right and wrong, beautiful or not, but few will have kind words for the latest in the long line of humans who believed that their views and tastes were the objective standard for all humans at all times.

[Belz...]

On the part I bolded.. this seems just like consequentialism. In other words, if you knew that in some situations you could be lying and deceitful and get away with it.. and you did that, then there is no rationale available from your point of view to say that what you did was wrong.
In that direction lies complete immorality.

Sure. If you knew that you could be lying and deceitful and God would never punish you and you'd still go to Heaven, not matter what you did, if only you ask for His forgiveness, would it lead to immorality ?

And isn't that EXACTLY what Christianism is ?

[rocketdodger]

I very much doubt that lying/deceit has in any way been shown to be a material disadvantage to the individual in life.

Of course you would doubt such a thing, because it doesn't play into your pet theory.

Nevertheless, it is true. Pick up a book on economics or game theory and learn something.

[John_Geeshu]

Given the subject in discussion, an excellent video for all to check out. 40 minutes long, germane and fascinating.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8809660521227813170

[FSM]

On that evidence, I'd characterise you as an easy room to work :).

I'm what!?


Oh, you meant my comedic standards aren't high. :)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Of course you would doubt such a thing, because it doesn't play into your pet theory.

Nevertheless, it is true. Pick up a book on economics or game theory and learn something.

You could start with the Evolution of the Social Contract, by Brian Skyrms.

Review:
"In this pithy and highly readable book, Brian Skyrms, a recognized authority on game theory and decision theory, investigates traditional problems of the social contract in terms of evolutionary dynamics. Game theory is skillfully employed to offer quite new interpretations of a wide variety of social phenomena, including justice, mutual aid, commitment, convention, and meaning."

A copy is sitting here on my desk right now. :D

[Tricky]

I'm what!?


Oh, you meant my comedic standards aren't high. :)
Well, you did follow Hawk one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2730035#post2730035)here to these forums, so we really can't speak too glowingly about any of your standards.;)

[nzric]

No theism, because you're clearly not a theist. Instead there is a massive amount of evolutionist/naturalistic faith. (on your part).

Wow, I'm the first atheist that plumjam has admitted is not a moral theist!

Do I get the meat tray?

From the materialistic/naturalistic point of view they do a lot better than the average honest Joe who does a non-lying tiring morally decent job in a factory, or whatever.

As I said, some people want to take the statistically unlikely route of instant gain and dishonesty because the rewards are huge (although so is the risk). Yes, bad people often get away with bad things, but lying and cheating is not only risky but also a lot of hassle (e.g. having a wife and a girlfriend... great in theory, but... :) )

[FSM]

Well, you did follow Hawk one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2730035#post2730035)here to these forums, so we really can't speak too glowingly about any of your standards.;)

It's because my comedic standards are high that I followed Hawkone here, Trix. :)

[Tricky]

It's because my comedic standards are high that I followed Hawkone here, Trix. :)
Okay. I can accept that. He is a joke after all.:D

[FSM]

Yeah, but he's MY joke. ;)

[thaiboxerken]

If only it hurt, physically, for a person to have their arguments soundly refuted and their beliefs debunked....

[PrincessIneffabelle]

If only it hurt, physically, for a person to have their arguments soundly refuted and their beliefs debunked....

Then we would all of us be in pain at some time or another.

[slingblade]

Pain tends to be one of the better teachers....if you live through it...

[Mobyseven]

Then we would all of us be in pain at some time or another.

True. Some of us would be in significantly more pain than others though. And damn if you wouldn't learn to examine your arguments better before you put them out there too! :p

[Kochanski]

To have perfect knowledge of something like objective beauty (or anything else), what is needed is a perfect merging of the subjective and the objective. This only exists in God. If you were to become God-realised, Joobz, I dare say you'd have a clear view of where the beatles stood in relation to kabuki, vis-a-vis musical beauty.
I'm not really familiar with Kabuki, but my money'd be on the cheeky scousers.

What a load of donkies, plumjam. Beauty is subjective. No end of navel staring, holy book reading or sky daddy seeking will give anyone the power to have perfect knowledge and the super power to recognize it. You need to go hang with the Co$, you seem to share their loopy belief in super powers.

[Glite]

I got to page 3, saw that it went on for many, many more. I don't think that plumjam will have learned anything or will respond to serious posts within the rest of the thread so I'll just respond to the OP.

It seems to me that the true nature of this thread was not to create a serious discussion, but to stir up some *%(# on the forums.

An Atheist simply means that a person does not believe in supernatural hooygafooey, it does not mean to define someones morality. It leaves that up to the person, who will likely do the "right thing" even though they are not being threatened by a pit of fire.

When I returned from an absence to the forums I found his threads and responses and for a moment wondered if he was serious or troll. I call troll and attention seeker.

First and last response to plumjam.

[cyborg]

An Atheist simply means that a person does not believe in supernatural hooygafooey, it does not mean to define someones morality. It leaves that up to the person, who will likely do the "right thing" even though they are not being threatened by a pit of fire.

He cannot accept this conclusion.

If morality is not objective then it is as easy for someone to decide something is "right" as it is to decide it is "wrong".

He does not want this to be the case.

He would have to accept that he would be as vulnerable to this arbitrariness as anyone else.

As such he could be Hitler. He could be Stalin. He could do evil.

Let us be thankful that it is not that simple for us to simply switch "right" and "wrong" even when we accept the conclusion that morality is arbitrary.

Our moral centres are nominally aligned. They are made objective by their physical construction.

Let us be fearful that it is, however, possible.

The objectiveness of our morality is based on our perception of the world.

If this forum achieves nothing else let it be testament to the fact that our perception of the world is highly malleable.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Where has PJ gone? Has he flounced off JREF? If so, where is the obligatory "You're all a bunch of meanie losers post"? :rolleyes:

[Foster Zygote]

Where has PJ gone? Has he flounced off JREF? If so, where is the obligatory "You're all a bunch of meanie losers post"? :rolleyes:

He comes and goes. He'll be back again with the same arguments.

[joobz]

He comes and goes. He'll be back again with the same arguments.
And when he comes back he'll make insulting snide claims against atheists, act innocent in defense, and then mention how mean/rude the atheists are. all the while, treat people who bother collecting evidence to disprove him with contempt and scorn. And then claim that evidence doesn't matter.

I think PJ is nice enough and can be funny. I think we would have some fun out on the town. But I do not delude myself by thinking he'll be open-minded in his debates.

[articulett]

What could their thought process be? "I'm going to drop over the the skeptics forum and see if I can convert a skeptic to woo to help me convince myself my woo is true?" Of course, the woo never think of their woo as woo.... to me they all start to blend together.

[FSM]

Well, I know for sure he didn't convert me to woo, or even convince me that secretly I'm an undercover theist, but more important, I also know for damn sure that

since he left

that means

I am the last one standing in the

Godless vs. Theist Comedy Smackdown!

I'll expect a marginallly funny concession speech when he returns.

[Tricky]

What could their thought process be? "I'm going to drop over the the skeptics forum and see if I can convert a skeptic to woo to help me convince myself my woo is true?" Of course, the woo never think of their woo as woo.... to me they all start to blend together.
Well, that's kinda how missionaries work (in my experience of having talked to some). The go out there and lay down the word, but the important thing is the effort, not actually winning converts. Admittedly, in some areas of missionary work, another important thing is not being eaten by the natives.

However that is not universal:
Q: Why won't cannibals eat missionaries?
A: You can't keep a good man down.

[six7s]

However that is not universal:
Q: Why won't cannibals eat missionaries?
A: They instinctively know there's no antidote for swallowing that much crap

Fixed that for you

;)

[articulett]

Well, I know for sure he didn't convert me to woo, or even convince me that secretly I'm an undercover theist, but more important, I also know for damn sure that

since he left

that means

I am the last one standing in the

Godless vs. Theist Comedy Smackdown!

I'll expect a marginallly funny concession speech when he returns.

I'm on team godless, and I support this expectation.

[FSM]

I'm on team godless, and I support this expectation.

Thanks Articulett and GO TEAM.

I fear we shall both see the end of our sour, hedonistic, humorless days without ever seeing this expectation fufilled.

But now, now we, the Godless Comedy Team can take a moment to relax still wearing our team uniforms (they look a lot like a bowling shirts except they smell of brimstone and have COOL flames all over them... and our names are embroidered on the pockets with demon saliva...) We'll go have a couple of morally subjective beers while we roast our latest sacrifice over a nice BBQ pit.

YAY us!


ETA:
Somebody save a leg for Gord! 'Afraid knot...' heeheehee

[six7s]

Stuffed Sacrificial Lamb BBQ


175 g (6 oz) fresh breadcrumbs
2 tsp 666-brand Garlic Salt
½ tsp 666-brand Ground Black Pepper
2 tbs 666-brand Parsley
2 tsp 666-brand Rosemary
75 g (3 oz) butter
1 medium egg, beaten
1 boned leg of lamb, ask your butcher to remove the bone before the lamb is eviscerated
6 tbs oil
Garnish: 12 button onions, peeled
12 glacé cherries


Mix the breadcrumbs with the garlic salt, black pepper, parsley and rosemary. Melt the butter and stir into the breadcrumb mixture. Add the egg and mix all the ingredients thoroughly. Use the stuffing to fill the bone cavity of the meat. Using a trussing needle and string, sew the loose meat edges together so that the leg resembles its original shape.

Place the joint on the grill and baste with the oil. Grill for 1 to 2¼ hours for medium (or until a meat thermometer inserted into meatiest part of roast registers 160°F/71°C) or 1¾ to 2½ hours for well-done (170°F/77°C). Add the onions for the last half of the cooking time.

When cooked, transfer the meat to a serving plate, skewer the onions and glacé cherries together on cocktail sticks and arrange with the meat.

Serves 5,000

[Olowkow]

Yum! I'll bring the wine....one bottle should do.;)

[HghrSymmetry]

Recently, I had the typical unproductive exchange with our resident “loss of contact with reality, pseudo cryptozoologist, imitation fossil archaeologist, biblical literalist”.
It had all the classic routines of most inane believer discussions. One point that I simply dismissed as just rhetoric might have had some merit upon further thought.

When trying to help it understand reality, one of its accusations were that I was try to “convert” it or otherwise try and bring it over to the “dark side.”
Naturally, I disagreed and informed it that I was merely trying to be helpful and assist in cranial removal from the nether regions.

Now however, I will admit that maybe it wasn’t entirely wrong on that point.
Consider an accident on the freeway. You stop to offer help. Why you may ask?
Because you were raised to try and help others in need? Because, it’s helpful to the society at large, that if individual members help each other it increases the genetic fitness of the whole group? Possibly a combination of those factors. That doesn’t necessarily conflict with the individual selfish gene. Sometimes helping the group can indirectly increase your own personal fitness when you need help.

Now, if that person is bleeding out from the jugular vein, your natural reaction would be to try and stop the blood loss. But what if they demand to be left alone to bleed out?
It’s tempting to dismiss their death wish, but if they are absolutely positively insistent in your inaction…well then perhaps their wishes should be heeded.
I know it’s hard to resist not to help a believer, because that 1% of the time when you do get through tends to create a false hope that they can be helped.
Being an optimist, I still fall for trying to help, though intellectually I understand that I’m usually pissing in the wind.

Here’s where the work of Dawkins, and the Wilson brothers (David Sloan, and Edward O.) may shed some light.
If the Wilson’s evolutionary perspective is correct, you have an irrationality system that may have helped early humans increase their genetic fitness. What ever the reason (increased group continuity, ease fear of death, maintain loyalty to the leader, etc).
As long as there is a positive selection pressure, then this predisposition will be passed on. Interestingly, there may have been a selection pressure to be rational most of the time, but have the ability to suspend that reason when it threatened the genetic fitness of the tribe. Coincidentally, that happens to explain why normally completely rational people (yes, including scientists) suspend that reason in very specific areas (i.e.: religion for example).
Though even the scientific community doesn’t completely accept this theory. Some of the resistance seems to come from those that argue physical traits are passed on and that cognitive traits are somehow not applicable. But then when one studies instincts, it would seem to support the possibility. Granted, "higher" thought processes are not instincts.

That being said, now combine Dawkin’s work with cultural meme indoctrination and you may have a powerful one-two punch that can have a global effect.
Yes, one or both of these theories may be incorrect, but there is something to be said for simple hypotheses that can explain vast amounts of behavioral data.

Even mediocre fans of irony would have to appreciate the ramifications.
The very ideas that theists dismiss may be the exact things that are responsible for their belief in the first place. Their denials can actually be viewed as confirmation.
It’s easy to dismiss theists as being dumb, blind, deluded etc. It might be more appropriate to think of them as simply being “human.”
You take some stinky, naked, sometimes violent yet clever hominids that have only recently come away from the safety of the forest and you jam them by the millions into cities. They have made great technological and knowledge based advancements, but still carry eons of baggage. That baggage served them well in the past, but unfortunately those same early characteristics don’t translate so well on a global scale.

Rather than becoming frustrated, perhaps you can forgive them and realize that they are products of their environment and culture.
It might be too much to ask (at this point) for humans to let go of those old convictions.


-H”only Scientologists know what to do at an accident scene” S.

[articulett]

Fixed that for you

;)

I was just thinking... if homeopathy is true, then couldn't the cannibals just chew some missionary fingernails for dessert should they become ill from swallowing "that much crap"?

(and add one more point to team godlessess' score... I can feel the demon spit embroidery on my shirt sizzling as I type this.....)

[FSM]

...

Even mediocre fans of irony would have to appreciate the ramifications.
The very ideas that theists dismiss may be the exact things that are responsible for their belief in the first place. Their denials can actually be viewed as confirmation.
It’s easy to dismiss theists as being dumb, blind, deluded etc. It might be more appropriate to think of them as simply being “human.”
You take some stinky, naked, sometimes violent yet clever hominids that have only recently come away from the safety of the forest and you jam them by the millions into cities. They have made great technological and knowledge based advancements, but still carry eons of baggage. That baggage served them well in the past, but unfortunately those same early characteristics don’t translate so well on a global scale.

Rather than becoming frustrated, perhaps you can forgive them and realize that they are products of their environment and culture.
It might be too much to ask (at this point) for humans to let go of those old convictions.


-H”only Scientologists know what to do at an accident scene” S.

I really loved this post.

And good points.

I don't really think that there's anything to forgive theists for... I don't really expect an apology from anyone who disagrees with me, no matter how wrong they are (like plumjam). I find it easy to think of everyone as equally clueless in this big huge mess of existence, I just tend to find those who are comfortable letting a mystery remain a mystery until otherwise proven more up my alley.

In my opinion, there's no US or THEM really (although the bowling shirts would indicate otherwise...) Theists are just as clueless about everything as we are, they just chose to give the mystery a name, a theme song and some nifty rules and costumes that come from straight out of a little town called Deyass. Oh yeah, and sometimes they decide to kill people who are from out of town.

At our core, however, just as you state, we are all "stinky, naked, sometimes violent yet clever hominids that have only recently come away from the safety of the forest," and they are our brethren in the struggle to understand the POINT of all this weird and unsettling existence crap.

I embrace my theist brothers and sisters with all the primieval STANK of the forest still genetically clinging to every bit of my DNA, I smell it on them as well, and I say unto them, HEY! Yo. Chillax, man. You have no freakin' clue about any of this either, right? How about a few jokes to pass the time?

Termite walks into a bar...


:)

[FSM]

And also,

an overdue LOL to Tricky and six 7's and Articulette. And-- some of these: :D:D:D

[articulett]

I had missed that post before, and HM is friend from another forum, so I thank you for noting it-- it was a great post.

I often think of how the meme/gene making reproduction machine of religion (whereby you encourage people to "go forth and multiply" and indoctrinate from birth) is a very good means of getting religion propagated. It also ensures that those with a genetic propensity to religiosity spawn at higher rates than their more rational counterparts.

This sucks for the rationalists amongst us.

[The Grave]

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now?
Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.

Ok. Then what?

What can you do that is positive?
Are there any specifically atheist 'values'?
Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?
(I don't think I've heard of any. Whereas religious charities there are thousands.)

Well, it's up to you. What next?
Preferably positive.


Yes well 'tis true, atheists aren't as good as the godly at making money...

As we all know, the majority of ("Give 'till it hurts") Faither charities are merely run as money making scams and have to give a little of their "hard earned cash" to some of the poor - I guess.

You forget to mention Plum-jum, (as Faithers usually do) THAT the fact is there are more atheist GIVERS than Faither takers!

It's merely an example of the rip-off Faither mind set and the arrogance of the Faither mentality to suggest that only Faithers give to charity...


Oh look... :eek: YOu aRe wRoNg aGaiN............

That is a direct result of your evolution from the lower primates... btw.:uk::footinmou

[The Grave]

Pain tends to be one of the better teachers....if you live through it...


Is that Miss, Ms, or Mrs Pain and does she teach RE, maths or art?

[HghrSymmetry]

I really loved this post.

And good points.
Thank you.
I don't really think that there's anything to forgive theists for
OK. Well, I suppose what I was trying to say is...."yes, theists sound ridiculous and inane....but, given cultural and Darwinian forces...they are not as fortunate to see the big picture." So I don't hold them entirely responsible.
"Forgive them father for they know not w...." :duck:

... I don't really expect an apology from anyone who disagrees with me, no matter how wrong they are (like plumjam).
Nor do I. It is I who pity them, for they are not able to see what is happening.


In my opinion, there's no US or THEM really
Agreed. I find all Homo sapiens mostly the same. I was simply making a distinction of those who have overcome two great obstacles: that being nature and nurture in regards to belief systems.


(although the bowling shirts would indicate otherwise...) Theists are just as clueless about everything as we are, they just chose to give the mystery a name, a theme song and some nifty rules and costumes that come from straight out of a little town called Deyass. Oh yeah, and sometimes they decide to kill people who are from out of town.

At our core, however, just as you state, we are all "stinky, naked, sometimes violent yet clever hominids that have only recently come away from the safety of the forest," and they are our brethren in the struggle to understand the POINT of all this weird and unsettling existence crap.

I embrace my theist brothers and sisters with all the primieval STANK of the forest still genetically clinging to every bit of my DNA, I smell it on them as well, and I say unto them, HEY! Yo. Chillax, man. You have no freakin' clue about any of this either, right? How about a few jokes to pass the time?

Termite walks into a bar...


:)

;)

[Tricky]

Yes well 'tis true, atheists aren't as good as the godly at making money...<snip>
Just FYI, The Grave, many posters here (myself included) regard "special effects" posting, like screamingly bold oversized type and overuse of smilies, to be the trademark of a woo or other extremist. Perhaps that is unfair, but it is based on long observation. If you feel the need to use these to make your point, you are free to do so, but I promise you that it will more likely make people ignore what you say rather than attract them to it.

If what you say is good enough, you don't need banners.

disclaimer: These generalizations do not apply to humorous posts.

[doctoratlantis]

Atheism does not encourage mankind to see equal value in our fellow beings, yet theism does, quite insistently.


True. Atheism denies that our values come from a god-law and requires that we make our decisions based on our own rational judgment. Michael Shermer's new economics book deals a good bit on the evolutionary basis of altruism. (You can read about that on his website without buying his book.)

But you do make a good point. Theism does show the value of our fellow beings. Especially of how to treat them as property when you enslave them.

Exodus 20:20-21
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

Yes, humans clearly have value.

And what are we to make of the idea that there is this all powerful creative god who makes this fabulous world - and when people refuse to obey his wishes (which he hasn't even bothered to write down on tablets yet) he destroys the whole world with flood?

And when they get up to bad stuff again, he arranges to have his own son murdered to set an example or something?

Is he from some kind of mafia or something?

But that's just the Judeo-Christian god. Probably not the best example of what a Deity can be...

I'm more of a Priapus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priapus) fan, myself. ;)

[HghrSymmetry]

I had missed that post before,

As a fellow Symmetrist, how is that possible?
:eek: :p
and HM is friend from another forum, so I thank you for noting it-- it was a great post.
Thanks Art.

I often think of how the meme/gene making reproduction machine of religion (whereby you encourage people to "go forth and multiply" and indoctrinate from birth) is a very good means of getting religion propagated. It also ensures that those with a genetic propensity to religiosity spawn at higher rates than their more rational counterparts.

This sucks for the rationalists amongst us.

Aye. We may not have the time to wait for a selection pressure to filter it out. At this stage in the game, perhaps only a cultural change will help. Northern Europe seems to be a bright spot.

"If he has the time doctor, if he has the time."

[blobru]

I really loved this post. <snip>

And I really loved this post.

It's the why I calls ya "baby", baby. :)

How about a few jokes to pass the time?

Termite walks into a bar...

Ok.

Termite walks into a bar...

"Has anyone seen that louse husband of mine?"

Bartender, scratching head... "Nope."

Termite scowls, leaves.

Louse... "Phew. That was a close one. Nice rug y' know, you can hardly tell."

Thermite walks in...

"I hear someone wants to get bombed tonight?"

Groan, boo, razz...

Thermite slinks out.

Hermit walks in...

"I feel so alone sometimes."

<crickets chirping>

...walks out.

The mitee-est, lord of lords, host of hosts, a man among amen, God walks in (He's obviously been drinking)...

"Ok, so okay, so who doesn't believe in Me then, eh? Who's man enough to man up right now <baarrpp!> and tell Me, right to My face, 'hey, god, I don't... I don't believe in You'?"

Theist, gleefully... "This guy, end of the bar, I heard him talking, he said, 'God's a big fairy tale, why should I believe in Him?'"

God slaloms to the end of the bar... "Is that right, buddy? You don't melieve in be?"

Theist, almost wetting pants... "You tell 'im, God!"

God... "Hey, chuckles, zip it! I'm workin' here."

Theist... "Sorry your almightiness. P-Please forgive me. It won't happen again. I don't know what got into me just now to make me behave like that. Must have been Satan. Yes that's it. I'm possessed. Foul tempter! How can I ever make it up to You, God? Please... anything. I love You with all my heart and live to obey Your every whim."

God... "*****, what is it about Me? Why do I always attract such losers?"

Atheist... "Well, aren't you kinda asking for it with all this blind faith nonsense?"

God... "Faith... nonsense? Listen, half this lot wouldn't know whether to ***** or shine shoes without Me watching their every move. They need Me!"

Theist... "That's right, God. We need You!"

God... "***** off!"

Theist... "Sorry, God. Satan."

God... "Man, All Things Bright And Beautiful there is seriously killing My buzz. Anyone seen My drink?"

Atheist... "Ummm, can I buy you a beer?"

God... "Or twenty, hah! Seriously, Tardenber, pour this god a drink, good sir knight... good night... goo..."

...props elbow, mashes cheek on fist; tv behind bar showing WWE, mixed tag.

God lightens... "Yeah, that's it, get her! Smite that Jezebel!"

Theist... "Give her a sound spanking, the harlot!"

God, at theist... "Put a sock on it, perv!"

Theist, whispering... "sorry, satan."

God... "What a ************ --" to atheist "-- did you know wrestling is fake?"

Atheist... "So they say."

God... "Imagine that. All those years, fans thought it was real. Real violence. Real blood. Real gore. Then they're told it's fake, and they don't care."

Bartender... "Here's your beer. Coors Lite ok?"

God... "Sure, whatever. *****, Sunday mornings I'd blow any man in here if he dipped it in alcohol, you know what I'm sayin', compadre?"

Theist, tugging on G's sleeve... "Heavenly Father, is that You in Your mysterious way saying You want me to blow...?"

God... "Last warning, ok sweet cheeks?"

Theist... "ahem... sa... tan."

God quaffs almightily, suds in His whiskers rabidly charming... "It's like we were saying earlier, non-believer. Blood. Ketchup. Wine. Who knows these days? Not Me. It's the matrix, you know? God I hated that movie. Keanu Reeves -- I died for his sins? What the hell was I thinking?"

Atheist... "So... what were you thinking, up there on the cross, if it's not too personal?"

Theist leans in.

God... "Oh, the usual. I hope I didn't leave the gas on. Did I cancel the paper? Who's going to water the cacti, feed the cat? But I also thought: 'What if this really isn't happening? What if I'm dreaming this, or you're dreaming this, what if a butterfly in China is dreaming this, am I the wind beneath its wings, and does that wind change the weather forecast halfway round the world the day they pin some poor schmo to a crucifix?' Anyway... Man, I need something to wash down that beer... bart <urp> ender! ... ... ... WTF!

Theist, having grappled onto G's shin like a lovesick chihuahua... "Heaven, I'm in heaven, and my heart beats so that I can hardly laugh, when we're out together dancing cheek to calf."

Atheist, rubbing eyes, punchline... "That's it. No more Canadian beer for me."

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Pain tends to be one of the better teachers....if you live through it...

I've been thinking about this. TBK said:
If only it hurt, physically, for a person to have their arguments soundly refuted and their beliefs debunked....

Does that sound like a good idea to you, too? What does physical pain teach us, really? It teaches us fear and hate. It teaches us to stop and avoid things that cause the pain.

How many of us previously believed, in some degree, in what we now see as "woo"? If you're like me, you arrived at your current, more rational, mindset through information, argument, and examining your beliefs. If you're like me, you would have never done that if it physically hurt you to do so. If I felt physical pain everytime one of my previous beliefs was debunked, I would have stopped and strictly avoided any further examination of my beliefs. I would have learned pretty quickly to ignore or discount any material or arguments that might physically hurt me. My personal growth would've been permanently stunted. Physical pain would have been a formidable barrier to rational thinking.

When our previously held and beloved beliefs are debunked, there is no real physical pain but there can be keenly felt emotional pain. It often hurts to change. I think that this emotional pain is why some woos cling to their irrational beliefs. They avoid/ignore/discount any materials or arguments that might cause them to feel the emotional pain of having their strongly held beliefs being debunked.

Is pain a "one of the better teachers"? True, pain teaches quickly and the lessons are often permanent. But, do remember that the lesson plan is fear, hate, distrust, and avoidance. Pain causes our rational minds to shut down.

When it comes to rational thinking and examination of beliefs, this is not my definition of a better teacher.

[FSM]

And I really loved this post.

It's the why I calls ya "baby", baby. :)



Ok.

Termite walks into a bar...

(snippperooony)

Atheist, rubbing eyes, punchline... "That's it. No more Canadian beer for me."


And this post is why I get all gooshy inside when you DO call me 'baby' :) or it could be because inside I'm made of spagetti sauce (note the missing 'h')... no clue which one applies.

Fave joke: Hermit.
Fave quote: God saying, "Sure, whatever. *****, Sunday mornings I'd blow any man in here if he dipped it in alcohol, you know what I'm sayin', compadre?"


Additionally, Blobby, you must know that a skeleton walked into that same bar the day after and asked for a beer and a mop.

It was weird.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<< SNIP >>

Bartender... "Here's your beer. Coors Lite ok?"

<< SNIP >>

Oh my God!! You'd buy GOD a Coors Lite??

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Thanks Articulett and GO TEAM.

I fear we shall both see the end of our sour, hedonistic, humorless days without ever seeing this expectation fufilled.

But now, now we, the Godless Comedy Team can take a moment to relax still wearing our team uniforms (they look a lot like a bowling shirts except they smell of brimstone and have COOL flames all over them... and our names are embroidered on the pockets with demon saliva...) We'll go have a couple of morally subjective beers while we roast our latest sacrifice over a nice BBQ pit.

YAY us!


ETA:
Somebody save a leg for Gord! 'Afraid knot...' heeheehee

The ribs are sweeter. :crowded:

[blobru]

Oh my God!! You'd buy GOD a Coors Lite??

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Hmm... that explains the storm cloud circling the patio all day.

Lesson to the kids out there -- God walks into a bar: Coors Lite? :covereyes Schlitz Malt?? :jaw-dropp Stella Artois??? :nope: Three Floyds Oak Aged Dark Lord Russian Imperial Stout. :halo: :alc:

[six7s]

Don't you know there ain't no devil
There's just god when he's drunk
Well this stuff will probably kill you
Let's do another line
What you say you meet me down on Heartattack and Vine...

rd04vltAt6I

[nzric]

Being a Theist means you can defer all responsibility, you don't have to face any of the harsh questions, because you always have "God works in mysterious ways" / "there are more things in heaven and earth..." etc. You can choose to believe and think anything you want, then when it gets a bit complicated or uncomfortable, you can draw a line in your thinking, with the optional "'ere be Dragons" over the border of your mental map.

As Plumjam has demonstrated, this also means you can define your own subjective as objective and if anyone complains you can lord it over them, without ever having to substantiate your opinion.

That's why a lot of Theists get a smug, "gotcha" expression when they ask you a question that implies Science (capital S) hasn't already come up with all the answers to everything in the universe, ever.

[schlitt]

Hmm... that explains the storm cloud circling the patio all day.

Lesson to the kids out there -- God walks into a bar: Coors Lite? :covereyes Schlitz Malt?? :jaw-dropp Stella Artois??? :nope: Three Floyds Oak Aged Dark Lord Russian Imperial Stout. :halo: :alc:

There is a drink called Schlitz Malt?

Hmmm

[blobru]

There is a drink called Schlitz Malt?

Hmmm

And the mascot... is a bull. No b.s., the Schlitz bull! Here:

FnP15Cv7eJo
:bricks:

[FSM]

Kevin Kline?!!?? NO!

[schlitt]

And the mascot... is a bull. No b.s., the Schlitz bull! Here:

FnP15Cv7eJo
:bricks:

OK, that's, errr... quite an ad.

Oh well, at least i have an extra t instead of a z, but it really just seems like a plural me.

[schlitt]

Kevin Kline?!!?? NO!

Whats wrong with Kevin Kline? ;)

He was funny in fish called wanda.

[FSM]

I think Kevin Kline is wonderful... But, But I think that's him doing the effete Robin Hood in the cheezy Shlitz commercial! Wow. When asked, I am sure the pat answer would be IWYINTM. (I was young-I needed the money.)

[Tricky]

I think Kevin Kline is wonderful... But, But I think that's him doing the effete Robin Hood in the cheezy Shlitz commercial! Wow. When asked, I am sure the pat answer would be IWYINTM. (I was young-I needed the money.)
I don't remember that (although that may be because they don't market Schlitz much around here). But Klein was perfect as the Pirate King in The Pirates of Pennzance, and he was hilarious in A Fish Called Wanda, In and Out, and my personal favorite, Dave. He also has serious acting chops as he showed in The Ice Storm. Though I didn't see him as Robin Hood, he had to be better than Kevin Cosner.

And he's a liberal, so therefore probably an atheist (my lame attempt to make this post on-topic).

[articulett]

Yes... as we all know from the wise Ann Coulter, all liberals are godless heathens. Ergo, I declare this thread "back on topic".

[Tricky]

Yes... as we all know from the wise Ann Coulter, all liberals are godless heathens. Ergo, I declare this thread "back on topic".
You think?
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20080204/lcrmlu080204.gif

[danmacduff]

Folks, this is where atheism, taken to its extreme, leads you.

Really, need I say any more? :rolleyes:
Where atheism leads is wherever YOU choose to go. We are responsible for our own "meaning." Why would fairy tales be superior to this?

[Tricky]

Where atheism leads is wherever YOU choose to go. We are responsible for our own "meaning." Why would fairy tales be superior to this?
The argument, I believe, is that we learn our morality from fairy tales. Even though those fairy tales are written by humans, they are supposedly "inspired humans", who will create a much better morality than we could as individuals.

Or at least, that's the hypothesis.

And welcome to the boards, Dan.

[Foster Zygote]

The argument, I believe, is that we learn our morality from fairy tales. Even though those fairy tales are written by humans, they are supposedly "inspired humans", who will create a much better morality than we could as individuals.

They were certainly inspired in Rwanda.

[wuschel]

In fact, theism is empty. It doesn't tell you how to live, give you any morality, or fill the aching void in the center of the theist's existence. They may adopt some moral precepts derived from some religion or other, and that's because they can't derive them from 'mere theism'. Theism is ultimately meaningless, a bare assertion that the supernatural exists, and if you're a theist and can't justify the meaning of life based on theism and nothing else, you are just kidding yourself and skipping around the central contradiction of your life: theism has nothing to do with morality or meaning.
Very well put - and worth quoting for the sole reason that indeed I think this is very well put and straight to the point!

[Tricky]

Very well put - and worth quoting for the sole reason that indeed I think this is very well put and straight to the point!
There's a good way to tell somebody, "you had an excellent post". It looks like this.
http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/nominate.gif

[CapelDodger]

Where atheism leads is wherever YOU choose to go.

To a giant, religion is just something else to trample along their chosen path.

We are responsible for our own "meaning." Why would fairy tales be superior to this?

We are giants :).

[dglas]

There's a good way to tell somebody, "you had an excellent post". It looks like this.
http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/nominate.gif

Win Powerball!!!

[Tricky]

Win Powerball!!!
Nominated!
get serious

[iamkion132]

I'll toss my hat into the ring. This is my first post here but I hope to at least add something to this forum. A first thread usually doesn't do that, but hopefully my future post will.

I've been an atheist for about 4 years now, and honestly my life hasn't changed all that much. I went on two mission trips after I became an atheist because I like(d) to help people. I still continue to help people, not because I am forced to in anyway or to gain favor, but because I want to. It's kind of cool to see the surprise on people's faces when you do random acts of kindness. In my mind, if someone where to ask me why, I can give an honest answer "because I can."

Atheism isn't a belief system. There is nothing that defines me as an atheist when it comes to beliefs. I'll differ from anyone else who defines themselves as an atheist, unless they are an Atheist, which there is a small difference compared to even just an atheist. An Atheist is someone who has created a belief system out of the fact that they don't believe in a theistic god. Most tend to be humanist and I am to a point one as well. I guess the only value I see is the value of human life and the improvement of it without being forced to do it. I don't see it that way as values are something that you have to think about and identify where it comes from. I just want to do good without having to having a possible alternate motive.

Why create an organization that caters to only one belief system? Why can't I just set one up that strives to help everyone regardless of what they may believe? There are plenty of good organizations that are out there that do good. I don't really care they are doing it more out of a religious nature, so long as anyone can be helped.

I may have repeated myself once or twice, but I hope this shows why I am an atheist and what I do. Doing good should come from within, not from without.

[joobz]

Hmm... that explains the storm cloud circling the patio all day.

Lesson to the kids out there -- God walks into a bar: Coors Lite? :covereyes Schlitz Malt?? :jaw-dropp Stella Artois??? :nope: Three Floyds Oak Aged Dark Lord Russian Imperial Stout. :halo: :alc:
Three Floyds? Are you from the region?

[Foster Zygote]

I'll toss my hat into the ring. This is my first post here but I hope to at least add something to this forum. A first thread usually doesn't do that, but hopefully my future post will.

I've been an atheist for about 4 years now, and honestly my life hasn't changed all that much. I went on two mission trips after I became an atheist because I like(d) to help people. I still continue to help people, not because I am forced to in anyway or to gain favor, but because I want to. It's kind of cool to see the surprise on people's faces when you do random acts of kindness. In my mind, if someone where to ask me why, I can give an honest answer "because I can."

Atheism isn't a belief system. There is nothing that defines me as an atheist when it comes to beliefs. I'll differ from anyone else who defines themselves as an atheist, unless they are an Atheist, which there is a small difference compared to even just an atheist. An Atheist is someone who has created a belief system out of the fact that they don't believe in a theistic god. Most tend to be humanist and I am to a point one as well. I guess the only value I see is the value of human life and the improvement of it without being forced to do it. I don't see it that way as values are something that you have to think about and identify where it comes from. I just want to do good without having to having a possible alternate motive.

Why create an organization that caters to only one belief system? Why can't I just set one up that strives to help everyone regardless of what they may believe? There are plenty of good organizations that are out there that do good. I don't really care they are doing it more out of a religious nature, so long as anyone can be helped.

I may have repeated myself once or twice, but I hope this shows why I am an atheist and what I do. Doing good should come from within, not from without.

A fine first post, and welcome to the forum.

[articulett]

I think about that as an atheist. I get a big kick out of other peoples' delight, and I feel invigorated if I helped the process. Maybe it's empathy... I feel happy when I hear the thump, thump, thump of my dogs' wagging tail or the purr of a cat. I do good things probably because it makes me feel good.

I can't bear witness to anguish or suffering without feeling it on some level myself. I think humans are wired to share in the joys and sorrows of other sentient beings, and religion is just one of the many stories people tell themselves about why they do what they do. Feelings are often primal and instinctive and we don't necessarily know why we feel them or how to control them. I think stories of gods and demons and so forth were the best explanations we could come up with in the past when trying to use language to make sense of emotions and share that information with others.

[dglas]

I'll toss my hat into the ring. This is my first post here but I hope to at least add something to this forum. A first thread usually doesn't do that, but hopefully my future post will.

I've been an atheist for about 4 years now, and honestly my life hasn't changed all that much. I went on two mission trips after I became an atheist because I like(d) to help people. I still continue to help people, not because I am forced to in anyway or to gain favor, but because I want to. It's kind of cool to see the surprise on people's faces when you do random acts of kindness. In my mind, if someone where to ask me why, I can give an honest answer "because I can."

Atheism isn't a belief system. There is nothing that defines me as an atheist when it comes to beliefs. I'll differ from anyone else who defines themselves as an atheist, unless they are an Atheist, which there is a small difference compared to even just an atheist. An Atheist is someone who has created a belief system out of the fact that they don't believe in a theistic god. Most tend to be humanist and I am to a point one as well. I guess the only value I see is the value of human life and the improvement of it without being forced to do it. I don't see it that way as values are something that you have to think about and identify where it comes from. I just want to do good without having to having a possible alternate motive.

Why create an organization that caters to only one belief system? Why can't I just set one up that strives to help everyone regardless of what they may believe? There are plenty of good organizations that are out there that do good. I don't really care they are doing it more out of a religious nature, so long as anyone can be helped.

I may have repeated myself once or twice, but I hope this shows why I am an atheist and what I do. Doing good should come from within, not from without.

Sigh. In a perfect world, yes. But this isn't a perfect world.

Your hidden premises are:

(1) Beliefs are neutral and mind their own business. The dark ages put paid to that assumption. Most belief systems, it seems, are verelse; they simply do not and cannot play well with others. History bears out that when the pen fails, the sword is wielded. The modern western world is based on the idea of growth and change. Hence, our more aggressive belief systems are being systematically neutered in order to allow for change and growth. The alternative, as history bears out, is stagnation and eternal recapitulation to Truth.

And this, by the way, is what separates the vibrant, dynamic modern world from the stagnant, maladaptive dark ages. It is a belief system based on promoting diversity of thought. Wow! What an incredibly powerful concept!

(2) Beliefs are harmless. Here's a rather unpleasant fact of life: two thousand pounds of onrushing plastic and steel doesn't care how one feels about being run down. The ground one is plummeting toward cares not at all what one believes about it. One has to account for it; it will not account for one, no matter what one believes.

(3) Beliefs are private artifacts. Simple fact of human life #1: we are social critters. In order to try to protect beliefs from critical examination, a wholesale retreat from reality has been underway for some time, but it is a laughable enterprise primarily because we are social critters. What is the meaning, in a social context, of a belief if it is entirely privately held or if it is never acted upon? I suppose one would say it means that person is divorcing himself from the rest of humanity. If one even so much as expresses a belief, one is performing a public act. And that's why deism is just the same as theism; it is not passive, even if it pretends to be; it is a "passive-aggressive" promotion of mystical-magical-think. We are all familiar with the power of symbols and the power of role-models. That these things have power proves that there are no passive beliefs.

Put these three together and you have a recipe for disaster on the grandest and most tragic of scales.

Now, I'm am most definitely not saying that we should hold our beliefs in private and never express them - that we relegate beliefs to an entirely private realm. That's the short route to madness. Private realms are entirely without checks or balances (check out posts by DavidJayJordan if you need a good example), just as beliefs (as people currently perceive of them) are. If we do not share and negotiate ideas, if we treat them as some kind of Truth (capital T), if we design them as uncontestable, unverifiable and unrefutable, then these ideas are so divorced from reality as to be entirely without referent.

On top of that, entirely privately held beliefs, never expressed, do not bring anything to the negotiating table for the benefit of others. Yes, you are reading this right: passively held, never expressed beliefs are not a Good Thing(TM), even if they are comfy and immune to critique.

Most modern religion tries to depict itself as passive (internally held), tolerant of diversity, and adaptive. It is none of the above, and its history proves it, including modern history. The only reason we aren't in the grip of an iron fist is we have locked the weapons away from them. We must never, ever again let them convince us they should have the key. Their history is crystal clear. It could be a few thousand lives in a commercial center or 30+ generations of ordinary human lives struggling under the yoke of stagnation and superstition that are at stake.

We must never let it happen again.


But, we must...

Win Powerball!!!

[dglas]

I think about that as an atheist. I get a big kick out of other peoples' delight, and I feel invigorated if I helped the process. Maybe it's empathy... I feel happy when I hear the thump, thump, thump of my dogs' wagging tail or the purr of a cat. I do good things probably because it makes me feel good.

I can't bear witness to anguish or suffering without feeling it on some level myself. I think humans are wired to share in the joys and sorrows of other sentient beings, and religion is just one of the many stories people tell themselves about why they do what they do. Feelings are often primal and instinctive and we don't necessarily know why we feel them or how to control them. I think stories of gods and demons and so forth were the best explanations we could come up with in the past when trying to use language to make sense of emotions and share that information with others.

Doh! Self-Interest explains everything doesn't it?

Just like God does.

Win Powerball!!!

[blobru]

Three Floyds? Are you from the region?

Indiana? No; beer expert I sat next to at a wedding once was raving about it. I like the grand name, sounds like something God might drink. Decals fit too:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1718347b3952683f1c.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10798)

"Worn out after a long age being the objective standard for morality, art, and even humor ferchrissake? Then why not measure Yourself against a Three Floyds Oak Aged Dark Lord Russian Imperial Stout? Pound a few of these into Ya and You won't be an objective standard for long -- You won't be standing for long. Look, being God is no picnic, that's for sure: day and night listening to whack job after whack job drone on and on about how much they love You. It's bound to leave even an omniscient being at wit's end. Isn't it about time someone answered Your prayers: for a bold, brash stout that leaves no doubt, you won't be seeing straight for a week? Three Floyds: when You wanna get stoned, OT-style; flood Your world with flavor!"

[bje]

That's all fine.. but none of that, as far as I can see, is derived from a belief in atheism, rather it's derived from you examining your conscience as any decent theist would do also.
Atheism does not encourage mankind to see equal value in our fellow beings, yet theism does, quite insistently.
Atheism remains silent on the matter, as it does on so many other important issues.
Thus those who are atheists will be less likely to be regularly exposed to the positive moral exhortations typical of theism.
That doesn't mean any individual atheist is bound to be more immoral, but the general influence will be in that direction.


None of what you say requires a belief in a "deity", so what is your point?

The Declaration of Independence is a moral document that had its inspiration from those influenced by the Enlightenment and distinctly Judeo-Christian ethical values. It is neutral on the existence or not of a deity.

Theists and atheists live by this document - and by the Constitution it inspired - on an equal basis. A belief in a deity is irrelevant.

None of us can escape history or its influences. That it includes religions whose influences have been both good and bad, as we see today more than ever, is undeniable. That all of those religions justified their existences on beliefs and claims of the existence of a deity is undeniable. We have no influence on past history. We can only learn and go forward.

As we go forward and our knowledge increases many of us have long been skeptical of the existence of a deity. So what? One cannot make any distinction on any grounds other than we don't believe in a deity. Period.

[six7s]

Atheism does not encourage mankind to see equal value in our fellow beings, yet theism does, quite insistently

If you really believe what you say plumjam, I suggest that you do some reading

Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 54,600,000 for hierarchy (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&suggon=0&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=hierarchy&btnG=Search)


Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 2,000,000 for patriarchy (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&suggon=0&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=patriarchy&revid=1706419068&sa=X&oi=revisions_inline&resnum=0&ct=broad-revision&cd=5)

If you want to narrow your search, try including the name of your favourite pope, ayatollah, guru, rabbi, bishop, imam, dean, llama, monk, pandit, cailiph, cardinal, archbishop, monsignor, reverend, curate, primate, sky pilot, etc and see how 'equal' they are compared with their neighbours

All theists are equal, but some theists are more equal than others

[HghrSymmetry]

Perchance the equestrian carcass is being beaten after expiration.
T'would seem the p*u*j*m has left the building.

[FSM]

I miss him.

[blobru]

I miss him.


Aim lower. ;)

[six7s]

And much further to the right