What I am saying

[Dogdoctor]

So I have some new thoughts about skepticism, religion and JREF forums. Many of you probably know I am an agnostic who thinks religion is important (not for me but for others). Long ago when I first started here I posted about my thoughts and was overwhelmed with all kinds of attacks on both me and my thoughts.. So I have sat and watched others and realized that there really isn’t good evidence for my beliefs. I also realized that others acted as though the opposite was true, that religion should be suppressed. After a while I realized there is no good evidence for that either and in fact if you were impartial and not influenced by what you want to be true, it seems that I am in deed right.
Atheists want to believe that atheism is better than religion yet studying history it doesn’t appear to be. Atheism is still uncommon in the world and religion has survived any attempts by atheists to eliminate it. Why is this? It’s because atheism doesn’t provide what is necessary for a society to survive (a social/moral structure). Atheists are not cohesive and all have their own ideas of what they think social structure or morality should be like. This is not conducive to building a society. It seems that religion is far superior to atheism for society in providing what people need to live. Religious freedom and tolerance is what makes the USA strong (not elimination of religion). Freedom seems to be an important factor in healthy societies. Repression of religion hasn’t ever worked.

If atheists are the majority of a democratic population then they can decide what ever they agree on for morals and social structure. If the majority of the population is religious then for atheists to get changes made they need to enlist the help of religious people.
Those who choose to be aggressive to religious people not only are to a large extent unsuccessful in changing minds they are also successful in loosing any support religious people might give them. Heck I am an agnostic and I don’t support that type of behavior and I am sure many atheists also feel likewise (forget about religious people).
It all boils down to this, religion has been around a long time and will likely persist for a long time to come. Aggressive in your face arguing with religious people will create more enemies than friends. There is no reason to suspect that aggressively attacking religion will help in any meaningful way.

A clue to those who are hopelessly lost in trying to avoid personal attacks. If you don't mention or infer a particular poster, you will do well in avoiding personal attacks. The poster is not their arguments so there is no need to discuss the poster at all. If you have anything to say about me pm me. Rip my arguments apart if you can but leave me out of it.

[thaiboxerken]

Are there not countries where the majority of the population are atheist? How come these countries don't need religion?

[JoeEllison]

Your OP contains several obvious lies.

Where would you like me to start correcting your blatant dishonesty?

[Wolfman]

Dogdoctor,

I'm a complete atheist, but would agree with your comments in general. I'm not an atheist because it is "better", or will make the world "better"; I am an atheist because I've become convinced, personally, that it is the truth. In some ways, religious beliefs could be very comforting...for example, the idea that when I die, I get to spend eternity in paradise surrounded by the people I love most. That is, to me, a significantly more pleasant and desirable outcome than simply ceasing to exist.

However, I could equally argue that my father not dying slowly of Parkinson's Disease while we all watch him deteriorate is a significantly less desirable outcome than an outcome where he never has Parkinson's, and lives a happy, healthy life. But how nice or desirable the particular outcome may be has no impact whatsoever on the reality of what is actually true, and what is not. I'm not an atheist because I think its "better"; I'm an atheist because I think its true.

Now, I've started or participated in several threads within these forums where some atheists attack theists quite vociferously, blaming all of the world's evils on them, and trying to claim that atheism somehow is superior in this regard. That is, in my opinion, a load of bollocks. As I've argued in other posts, if we were to remove theism entirely from the world tomorrow, and have a 100% atheist population, I'd bet that we'd still have exactly the same abuses, exactly the same problems. We'd just find other excuses/rationalizations for it (politics, race, nationalism, etc.). Nor would the world be any less woo-ish, or any more rational -- just check out all the athiest woos today who still blindly believe in incredibly stupid claims.

There are atheists who are 9-11 conspiracists. There are atheists who believe firmly that some races are superior to others. There are atheists who are hard-core Communist, and atheists who are hard-core Nazis. There are atheists who set up atheist religions (like the Raelians), simply replacing non-existent gods with non-existent aliens. There are atheists who swear that homeopathy works, and that psychic powers exist. There are atheists who seek wealth and power regardless of how many people they have to hurt/kill to get it.

I argue for atheism because I believe it is true; not because I believe it is better.

Now, if we were to change the topic to discuss Humanism, then my argument would change. I do believe that the world would be a better place if everyone were magically changed into Humanists. Humanism doesn't just advocate atheism; it teaches that rational thought, science, skepticism, etc., are all important tools, and that whatever we believe, it should be based on a rational, scientific examination of the 'proofs' presented to us. Beyond that, it advocates for democracy, human rights, human equality, human dignity, etc. If people lived their lives according to the teachings of Humanism, I believe the world would be a better place. Heck, even theists can be Humanists...rather than seeking to divide into "us vs. them", and make "them" think like "us", Humanism promotes simply getting theists to examine and think about their beliefs more rationally; with the belief that, if they do so, they'll eventually become atheists. Not because atheism is better, not because we convinced them it was wrong...but because the preponderance of facts and information will eventually convince them that is so.

But we'll never have a world that is predominantly Humanist (I don't think so, anyway). Because there will always be people who seek power, there will always be people who believe they are superior, there will always be people willing to accept extraordinary or illogical claims without examining them critically, etc.

We're stuck with the world we've got. And what I think is sad is that so many atheists, while claiming to be more rational, and claiming to be in a 'superior' position, nevertheless blindly repeat the mistakes that have been made by every group in history (theist or atheist) that has believed they are superior -- they seek to divide everything into "us" vs. "them", and to demonize "them" as inferior, as more dangerous, etc.

And by doing so, the only thing they really accomplish is to guarantee that the same problems are repeated over and over and over again.

[Kopji]

It seems that religion is far superior to atheism for society in providing what people need to live.

My simple observation of the evening news is that a large number of people in the world would be better off without religion. (I am). At least if it was not there to hide behind, it would be easier to see those who hide behind its curtain for purposes of controlling power or gaining wealth at their expense. And this may sound rather extremist, but religion prospers by using some kinds of people to serve its own ends. Who stands for the right of those people to simply live, instead of being someone's demon or saint to fertilize faith?

But what should the role of atheists be? You are right, there is not much to unify except a defining perspective or realization. But suppose for a moment that religion is only one manifestation of a deeper human quality that is a source of many (mostly beneficial) things - art, music, etc: In this view, religion does not inspire creative effort toward art or beauty, but channels it.

So a role for an atheist might be more like what the Buddhists would call a 'Bodhisattva': Not here to destroy or condemn, but to educate. To try and help others gain a wider perspective. Instead of religion being like a river that flows in a rigid and cement channel made by mostly old men, an atheist can encourage wider and more free directions of thought.

[godofpie]

What Wolfman said.

[Hokulele]

These are the bits from Wolfman's post that I agree with the most.

I'm a complete atheist, but would agree with your comments in general. I'm not an atheist because it is "better", or will make the world "better"; I am an atheist because I've become convinced, personally, that it is the truth. In some ways, religious beliefs could be very comforting...for example, the idea that when I die, I get to spend eternity in paradise surrounded by the people I love most. That is, to me, a significantly more pleasant and desirable outcome than simply ceasing to exist.

...

We're stuck with the world we've got. And what I think is sad is that so many atheists, while claiming to be more rational, and claiming to be in a 'superior' position, nevertheless blindly repeat the mistakes that have been made by every group in history (theist or atheist) that has believed they are superior -- they seek to divide everything into "us" vs. "them", and to demonize "them" as inferior, as more dangerous, etc.

And by doing so, the only thing they really accomplish is to guarantee that the same problems are repeated over and over and over again.


Dogdoctor, I disagree slightly with your OP, in that you seem to lump religion and theism in the same box. As posters such as Ryokan demonstrate, it is possible to be both religious and atheistic at the same time.

In general, I prefer to attack specific beliefs that I find to be harmful rather than various religions as a whole. Sometime the beliefs are too intertwined with the believer, and it can make many arguments seem to be an attack on the individual (see posts in the threads Radrookposts in for an example).

So to be specific about your OP, I disagree that you can make an argument that religion is superior to atheism for creating a society, in that atheism is not meant to be a fundamental philosophy (although some may treat it as such). Wolfman's discussion of Humanism would be a much better compare and contrast for society building than atheism.

[Skeptic Ginger]

8,394 posts (as of the OP) and you are still going on and on, Dd, claiming everyone else thinks this or that, mostly along the same old theme, you claiming to be agnostic and you claiming atheists believe, "that religion should be suppressed".

Yaaaawwwnnnn.... You are told over and over, your attack is against a straw man. Atheists may or may not care to educate and encourage critical thinking, but I've read very few, if any atheist positions here on JREF that theism should be suppressed. Yet on and on you go imagining that is what you read. You again and again claim that is what is said here on JREF despite the fact you would be hard pressed to cite a single atheist here claiming what you claim, that theists should be suppressed.

What are we to conclude from this imaginary persecution you claim is not your personal battle? What are we to conclude about your supposedly valiant fight in the name of the importance of believing in gods that you don't personally believe in?

I conclude that you are a theist in disguise. You are a liar for Jesus despite the fact that bearing false witness is a violation of one of the sacred 10 commandments. You make these claims in some misguided quest despite the fact that Biblical stories include many a hero who stood fast in their beliefs refusing to denounce Jesus or God. You are here persistent in your 8,394 posts in the bizarre belief of something like that you will shame the skeptic community into professing guilt at having challenged the god believers to critically examine their god beliefs.

I don't think so, Dd. No guilt is forthcoming as far as I can see. God beliefs are irrational. Some skeptics challenge them, some give god beliefs a pass. But few if any JREF skeptics have any stake in suppressing any beliefs, be they beliefs in homeopathy or beliefs in magical beings in the sky. Skeptics promote education. They promote critical thinking. Maybe a few of them are political position pushers. But few skeptics, if any, are likely to agree with the position that any beliefs should be suppressed. On that count your imagination has gotten the better of you and your lies for Jesus are showing through your facade.

[lupus_in_fabula]

I find the whole atheist vs. theist distinction more meaningful on a personal level than if we drag the distinction out to the societal level. I can’t think of a modern society that isn’t, and hasn’t been, atheistic in regards to most theist beliefs floating around in the collective – the amount of adopted beliefs seems to be dependent on homogeneity of the collective as well as the total variability of ideas within the collective (both ends of the spectrum). It’s only a handful of beliefs from the whole sea of possibilities that actually can be recognized as socially adopted.

There has been some effort in trying to actively eradicate other beliefs in favour of some other beliefs, but they have turned out to be short lived. Information in general tends to escape confinement in the long run; the invention of books, translating the bible into other languages than Latin, the invention of printing, commerce, electronic communication etc. springs to mind. If there is an “atheist agenda” which tries to directly eradicate religious beliefs, it will be short lived as well (precisely in the same way as any religious dogma).

It seems that the most effective way of transforming beliefs has been time, especially in the sense that when some phenomena that previously were within the domain of religious explanations has been properly explained by more precise rational or scientific means and observations (in such a way as people actually see and understand the reasoning), religious beliefs in general has reoriented itself to fit the newer worldview. One does not always have to be ‘against’ something in order for change to occur if there’s sufficient reason to be ‘for’ something else. Precisely in the same way as one does not actively have to eradicate a false belief that 4 + 4 = 9 if he realizes that it’s actually 8.

[Wolfman]

8,394 posts (as of the OP) and you are still going on and on, Dd, claiming everyone else thinks this or that, mostly along the same old theme, you claiming to be agnostic and you claiming atheists believe, "that religion should be suppressed".

Yaaaawwwnnnn.... You are told over and over, your attack is against a straw man. Atheists may or may not care to educate and encourage critical thinking, but I've read very few, if any atheist positions here on JREF that theism should be suppressed. Yet on and on you go imagining that is what you read. You again and again claim that is what is said here on JREF despite the fact you would be hard pressed to cite a single atheist here claiming what you claim, that theists should be suppressed.

What are we to conclude from this imaginary persecution you claim is not your personal battle? What are we to conclude about your supposedly valiant fight in the name of the importance of believing in gods that you don't personally believe in?

I conclude that you are a theist in disguise. You are a liar for Jesus despite the fact that bearing false witness is a violation of one of the sacred 10 commandments. You make these claims in some misguided quest despite the fact that Biblical stories include many a hero who stood fast in their beliefs refusing to denounce Jesus or God. You are here persistent in your 8,394 posts in the bizarre belief of something like that you will shame the skeptic community into professing guilt at having challenged the god believers to critically examine their god beliefs.

I don't think so, Dd. No guilt is forthcoming as far as I can see. God beliefs are irrational. Some skeptics challenge them, some give god beliefs a pass. But few if any JREF skeptics have any stake in suppressing any beliefs, be they beliefs in homeopathy or beliefs in magical beings in the sky. Skeptics promote education. They promote critical thinking. Maybe a few of them are political position pushers. But few skeptics, if any, are likely to agree with the position that any beliefs should be suppressed. On that count your imagination has gotten the better of you and your lies for Jesus are showing through your facade.
I'm gonna' have to take issue with you on this one, skeptigirl.

I've started a number of threads on similar topics, and joined others. I've found a number of atheists here who very vocally and strongly express opinions such as the following:

* Most of the world's problems are because of theism (or variations on this theme), and the corollary that eliminating theism would make the world a better place.

* That allowing parents to teach theism to their children is tantamount to child abuse

To return your rather aggressive (and in my opinion, unfounded) accusations against Dogdoctor, I'd have to assume that given the frequency of such arguments being expressed in these forums, that you either are being intentionally obtuse, or have not read enough of the posts in this regard to be able to comment authoritatively on what has or has not been said by others here.

I myself have been labeled (falsely) an undercover theist, or a theist apologist, for daring to oppose or argue against those atheists who have expressed such sentiments.

It may be that the things dogdoctor talks about do not represent the beliefs of the majority of atheists in this forum (I have not done a census in this regard); but even if a minority, there is certainly a very vocal minority of atheists who express very aggressive anti-theist sentiments. My god -- if calling the teaching of religious beliefs "child abuse" does not represent "attempts to suppress theism", what exactly would? It only counts if we're actually trying to kill them?

I don't entirely agree with dogdoctor's position, but I understand it. Whereas I see little to nothing that justifies the ferocity of your attack on dogdoctor. He makes general comments, on a problem that he perceives. That perception has at least some basis in reality, even if it does not represent the perspective of many atheists here. But your comments constitute nothing more than a personal attack on him, using claims that are blatantly false.

[Wolfman]

To add to the above...one of the stupidest "atheist" things I've seen was the whole "Out Campaign (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=93858)" thing, started by Richard Dawkins. That is, wearing a t-shirt with an "A" on it to tell people you're an atheist, and to show your solidarity with other atheists.

Yippee!!! Woohoo!!

I can march proudly down the street with racists, psychics, Raelians, Communists, neo-Nazis, and tons of other such people, all proudly sporting our "Atheist" t-shirts to show our unity!!

And what blows me away more than anything else is that Richard Dawkins, who is supposed to be some sort of "great spokesman" for atheism, promotes such a completely idiotic idea...further giving the impression that "atheism" means some sort of commonality of belief, values, or morals. It is largely because of people like him that people like Dogdoctor end up misunderstanding what atheism is.

I hate even identifying myself as an atheist -- the term means absolutely nothing beyond the fact I don't believe in any god. It says nothing about the reasons why I don't believe in that god. It says nothing about what I do believe in. It is no more implicitly 'rational' than theism is. If I choose to believe that there is no god because I think that aliens have contacted some guy and told him that they created our world, not god -- does that mean that my choice to be an atheist is rational? It says nothing about my moral or ethical beliefs. In fact, it pretty much means diddly squat.

I'm a Humanist.

[plumjam]

Well said, Wolfman. I'm admiring your defence of DogDoctor, who seems to have come in for some unwarranted stick.
As you say, the term 'atheist' covers, as it were, a broad church ;)

This kind of presents a problem. There are atheists such as yourself and The Atheist who are entirely reasonable and fair-minded. Perhaps this covers the silent majority of the atheists here.
On the other hand, as you point out, there are the more vocal aggressive (and, I would argue, emotionally committed) atheists here. Possibly they are in the minority of readers but they post more than most.

There is also this matter of the "New Atheists" (Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet, and Sam whatsisname). The aggressive vocal atheists here seem to be big fans of these guys. To that extent this represents some kind of 'movement'. Maybe, then, the problem is that this latter group or movement should not be lumped in together with the rest of atheism. Maybe they need some kind of common title.
I propose "Faitheists" :p

From my point of view, as a theist, I would prefer not to be having to lump the fair-minded pleasant atheists such as yourself along with the Messianic ones. Unfortunately, without a more effective descriptive schema (which people will accept and stick to) that proves pretty much impractical.

[Nihilus]

Atheists want to believe that atheism is better than religion...
It is not "better" (that is for the individual to decide).
It is simply more logical.

[Nihilus]

It’s because atheism doesn’t provide what is necessary for a society to survive (a social/moral structure).
Biology or secular philosophies do that for us just fine. Which brings me to a point concerning your apparent confusion about what, exactly, atheism is...

Atheists are not cohesive and all have their own ideas of what they think social structure or morality should be like.
You do understand that by knowing that person is an atheist, you have no information about what that individual is, right? All atheism tells you is what a specific individual isn't.

From there, each person creates their own actual structural philosophies. I, for instance, consider myself an existential nihilist. Many atheists would not fall under that category.

This is not conducive to building a society. It seems that religion is far superior to atheism for society in providing what people need to live. Religious freedom and tolerance is what makes the USA strong (not elimination of religion). Freedom seems to be an important factor in healthy societies. Repression of religion hasn’t ever worked.
As it seems many people have a psychological need for some sort of existential delusion to be actively motivated, I may not necessarily disagree with you. But, again..."better" does not always mean "more logical".

[Professor Yaffle]

As I have read through this thread, I have been mentally composing replies to certain posters. And each time, I have found that Wolfman has said exactly what I was thinking (and said it better than I would have).

So I can only add, "What he said".

[Nihilus]

As I have read through this thread, I have been mentally composing replies to certain posters. And each time, I have found that Wolfman has said exactly what I was thinking (and said it better than I would have).

So I can only add, "What he said".
Unfortunately, I did not engage in a thorough reading of the thread before responding or I may have done the same thing.

[Wolfman]

It is not "better" (that is for the individual to decide).
It is simply more logical.I wouldn't agree with the way you've expressed that, exactly. I'd agree that the process some people use to take an atheist worldview is more logical (I'd feel that way about my own reasons, for example). But consider the following:

Situation 1 -- We have a group of people with limited or no access to modern scientific tools to examine the world around them. They see things happening -- disease, famine, earthquakes, etc. -- that are all entirely beyond their ability to explain or control. They ascribe it to some supernatural entity. Then someone comes along and tells them that, "Well, actually, disease is caused by tiny organisms that you can't see, and I can't show you; or by mistakes in tiny chains within your own cells (which are also too small to be seen)". Is it any more "logical" for them to accept this theory, than the theory that there are supernatural forces?

I know...you'll say that may have been a relevant argument once, but not today. So I give you situation number two.

Situation 2 -- A French farmer claims that aliens have contacted him, and told him that there are no gods. He says that they tell him they created the earth, and have overseen our development; they are no preparing to return and reveal themselves to us, once we can show we are advanced/developed enough to accept them. Someone hears this, and believes it, and therefore becomes an atheist.

How is this person's decision to become an atheist any more "logical" or "rational" than any theist? Or, how about...

Situation 3 -- A kid is born into an atheist family, and simply taught that atheism is right. He is not presented with any alternate beliefs, he's not even given any real evidence or proof for atheism...he accepts it uncritically as received wisdom, because it is what he's been taught to believe.

How is this person's decision to be an atheist any more "logical" or "rational" than the person who becomes a theist because that's what their parents taught them?

[Wolfman]

From my point of view, as a theist, I would prefer not to be having to lump the fair-minded pleasant atheists such as yourself along with the Messianic ones. Unfortunately, without a more effective descriptive schema (which people will accept and stick to) that proves pretty much impractical.Well, perhaps your difficulty lays in the fact that you're applying the term "atheist" improperly.

I might as well describe someone as "human", and then try to ascribe what they believe. Or label someone as "theist", and based on that define what they believe. Or label someone as "Christian", and simply assume that all Christians hold exactly the same beliefs.

Feel free to label me as a Humanist, as I've said. That is a label I'd consider accurate, and broadly reflective of my beliefs. It puts me in a category of people whose beliefs and teachings I would, for the most part, agree with and support (keeping in mind that I don't think any belief system is ever going to have 100% agreement). I'd have no problem wearing a t-shirt with a big "H" on it to tell people that I'm a Humanist, and that I share much in common with others who use the same label.

One part of my being a Humanist (and in my opinion, not a particularly important part in the big picture) is that I'm an atheist. But it in no manner, shape, or form should be used in an attempt to define my beliefs, or to identify me with others who also identify themselves as atheists.

[Nihilus]

Right there...a fallacy.
We'll see.

Consider the following situations:

Situation 1 -- We have a group of people with limited or no access to modern scientific tools to examine the world around them. They see things happening -- disease, famine, earthquakes, etc. -- that are all entirely beyond their ability to explain or control. They ascribe it to some supernatural entity. Then someone comes along and tells them that, "Well, actually, disease is caused by tiny organisms that you can't see, and I can't show you; or by mistakes in tiny chains within your own cells (which are also too small to be seen)". Is it any more "logical" for them to accept this theory, than the theory that there are supernatural forces?
Now you're the one reverting to fallacy: baiting and switching. I said atheism was more logical. You're asking if their propensity to believe one (at the moment) unprovable hypothesis is more logical than believing the next.

This isn't an issue of Schrodinger's Cat. Whether they have the means to ascertain it or not at the time, one hypothesis is more congruent to reality than the other (ergo, more "logical").

Now, if I had been asked if their decision to choose X over Y (with things being as you stated in your example) was more logical, I would have not stated so. However, even in that case both are equally logical/illogical (based on available knowledge).

Situation 2 -- A French farmer claims that aliens have contacted him, and told him that there are no gods. He says that they tell him they created the earth, and have overseen our development; they are no preparing to return and reveal themselves to us, once we can show we are advanced/developed enough to accept them. Someone hears this, and believes it, and therefore becomes an atheist.

How is this person's decision to become an atheist any more "logical" or "rational" than any theist? Or, how about...
You are again mistaking the illogical methodology for the logical conclusion (the non-existence of a theistic deity).

I agree with you fully that the methodology is important to weed out antitheists (as I call them). I remember in math classes in school how teachers would not give credit for questions answered correctly if the proper equation was not also presented...but the correct answer was still the correct answer.

Situation 3 -- A kid is born into an atheist family, and simply taught that atheism is right. He is not presented with any alternate beliefs, he's not even given any real evidence or proof for atheism...he accepts it uncritically as received wisdom, because it is what he's been taught to believe.

How is this person's decision to be an atheist any more "logical" or "rational" than the person who becomes a theist because that's what their parents taught them?
I, again, never said anything about the process of making the decision to become an atheist to always be logical.

Atheism is a word to describe the impartial (ideally) result, not the journey. Just because I take a route through Texas to get from Virginia to Tennessee (an illogical route), does not mean I haven't actually ended up in Tennessee.

[Wolfman]

We'll see.I appreciate the feedback :)

But "logic" is based on the information you are given. Improper or incomplete information will lead one to conclusions which are, based on the information you have at hand, entirely logical (and entirely erroneous). So a wrong conclusion can be logical; and a proper conclusion can be illogical.

A simple example -- the theory of spontaneous generation of life, that was once held by some scientists, that if you leave a lump of meat out and let it rot, maggots will spontaneously generate from the rotting meat.

You could set up a fully scientific experiment. Try the experiment. Repeat the experiment numerous times. Track the results. Every experiment would reveal results consistent with your thesis that maggots are being spontaneously generated from the dead flesh.

In fact, without the means to be able to detect the almost microscopic eggs being laid by the flies, this would be a completely logical conclusion to reach. And, as we know, it was entirely wrong.

So I could very reasonably (and logically) conclude that "spontaneous generation" was the "most logical" conclusion for them to reach. You cannot discuss how logical any given conclusion is, without looking at the information that has been used to reach that conclusion.

[Nihilus]

I appreciate the feedback :)

But "logic" is based on the information you are given. Improper or incomplete information will lead one to conclusions which are, based on the information you have at hand, entirely logical (and entirely erroneous). So a wrong conclusion can be logical; and a proper conclusion can be illogical.
for instance, it was illogical to counter my statement with unrealistic hypothetical scenarios.

If someone had said his cousin Jeffrey was the best golfer in the world, I don't suppose it would be make sense to consider his comment logical on the ground that he just may not know anything about golf other than what his cousin does.

The context of the discussion was obviously happening with the present parties being fully aware of the arguments for and against theism.

A simple example -- the theory of spontaneous generation of life, that was once held by some scientists. For example, if you leave a lump of meat out and let it rot, maggots will spontaneously generate from the rotting meat.

You could set up a fully scientific experiment. Try the experiment. Repeat the experiment numerous times. Track the results. Every experiment would reveal results consistent with your thesis that maggots are being spontaneously generated from the dead flesh.

In fact, without the means to be able to detect the almost microscopic eggs being laid by the flies, this would be a completely logical conclusion to reach. And, as we know, it was entirely wrong.
I wasn't aware that logic caters to the intellectual apathy of people to ascertain pertinent information to the issues they are debating.

So I could very reasonably (and logically) conclude that "spontaneous generation" was the "most logical" conclusion for them to reach. You cannot discuss how logical any given conclusion is, without looking at the information that has been used to reach that conclusion.
The examples you are giving are arrived at by imaginative means without any study (which is, itself, illogical). Your first example was the best as it permitted for a threshold of available knowledge, but even then, any proposed hypothesis would be as "logical" as the next (therefore rendering the "more logical" assessment null).

[Wolfman]

for instance, it was illogical to counter my statement with unrealistic hypothetical scenarios.

If someone had said his cousin Jeffrey was the best golfer in the world, I don't suppose it would be make sense to consider his comment logical on the ground that he just may not know anything about golf other than what his cousin does.

The context of the discussion was obviously happening with the present parties being fully aware of the arguments for and against theism.


I wasn't aware that logic caters to the intellectual apathy of people to ascertain pertinent information to the issues they are debating.


The examples you are giving are arrived at by imaginative means without any study (which is, itself, illogical). Your first example was the best as it permitted for a threshold of available knowledge, but even then, any proposed hypothesis would be as "logical" as the next (therefore rendering the "more logical" assessment null).
Nihilus,

My point is that the reasons that many people are atheists are far from logical. Raelians are a brilliant example of this. They are completely atheistic -- rather militantly so, in fact -- yet are atheists because they believe that aliens have revealed some "higher plan" to their leader.

You can say, "My reasons for being an atheist are more logical". I have no problem with that. But saying that atheism is implicitly more logical is, as I said, a fallacy. It is only as logical as the information that you have to reach the conclusion. I wouldn't consider a Raelian's atheism any more "logical" than a theist's beliefs (and in some cases, might even consider the theist's beliefs to be more logical by comparison).

And how on earth can you call my arguments "unrealistic hypothetical scenarios"? Are you really that naive?

In regards to scenario number two above, I was citing the real, actual beliefs of the followers of Rael, who founded an atheist "religion" based on his beliefs that aliens had revealed a greater truth to him -- one that excludes gods of any kind, and glorifies science.

And in regards to scenario number three above, I'm living in China. I can point to quite literally millions of Chinese who were born and raised their entire lives being taught a completely atheist viewpoint...and being told to believe it simply because that is what their leaders say is right.

So "unrealistic hypothetical scenarios"? Neither unrealistic (they are taken from real-world, modern-day situations), nor hypothetical.

[brodski]

I can march proudly down the street with racists, psychics, Raelians, Communists, neo-Nazis, and tons of other such people, all proudly sporting our "Atheist" t-shirts to show our unity!!

The same you be said for showing yourself to be a member of virtually any group, religious, theistic or not.

Do you disavow membership of any and all groups because there may be some people who are members of that group with unpleasant views, especially unpleasant views which are completely co-incidental to the definition of the grouping which you share with them?

Should, for instance, one not fly the flag of ones nation as citizens of that nation can also be racists, psychics, Raelians, Communists or neo-Nazis?

Should one not wear the colours of ones sports team as some fans may be racists, psychics, Raelians, Communists or neo-Nazis?

Although atheists are a disparate group then do have some common interest, and forging a group identity focused round that narrow goal is a good thing, especially in societies where atheists are treated with suspicion. Atheists are already negatively stereotyped as a group in many places, and keeping quiet isn't going to change that, so why not attempt to produce a more positive image?

[Wolfman]

The same you be said for showing yourself to be a member of virtually any group, religious, theistic or not.

Do you disavow membership of any and all groups because there may be some people who are members of that group with unpleasant views, especially unpleasant views which are completely co-incidental to the definition of the grouping which you share with them?
Actually, your argument has already been refuted by my statements here. I stated very clearly that I have no problem whatsoever with being identified as a Humanist. While I am certain that there are certain individual Humanists with whom I'd disagree, the beliefs and values of Humanism are something that I believe in and support very strongly.

It's not a question that "there may be people within my group with whom I disagree, or whom I find distasteful". It is the fact that identifying myself as a Humanist implicitly identifies me with a specific set of beliefs, values, etc.

That is absolutely not the case in regards to atheism. As atheists here point out all the time, atheism does not define a belief in anything; only a lack of belief in the existence of a god.

I can be passionate about being a Humanist. It gives me specific beliefs, specific values, that I can apply to my life, and attempt to communicate to others.

But being an atheist? Basically, the only thing I can communicate is that I don't believe in god. That's it. Absolutely nothing beyond that point is implicitly part of being an atheist. And being passionate about a non-belief is something I find...well...stupid.

If I were marching as an atheist, and there were neo-Nazis there...we'd be marching for exactly the same thing. I would not be able to argue that "you are not a real atheist".

If I were marching as a Humanist, and there were neo-Nazis there...I'd be able to unequivocally state that the things they believe in directly contradict the things for which Humanism stands -- democracy, human rights, equality, etc.

[brodski]

Actually, your argument has already been refuted by my statements here. I stated very clearly that I have no problem whatsoever with being identified as a Humanist. While I am certain that there are certain individual Humanists with whom I'd disagree, the beliefs and values of Humanism are something that I believe in and support very strongly.


Not quite, humanism is an ideology, whereas atheism is not, which is why i chose examples which where not ideological in their nature, but can form the basis of a common identity and can related to groups which share a common interest.

How do you feel about the two examples I gave?

But being an atheist? Basically, the only thing I can communicate is that I don't believe in god. That's it. Absolutely nothing beyond that point is implicitly part of being an atheist. And being passionate about a non-belief is something I find...well...stupid. AH, do you feel the same about skepticism? Is a non belief in psychics, or homoeopathy something to not get worked up about? Is that equally stupid?

[Mobyseven]

I wouldn't agree with the way you've expressed that, exactly. I'd agree that the process some people use to take an atheist worldview is more logical (I'd feel that way about my own reasons, for example). But consider the following:

Situation 1 -- We have a group of people with limited or no access to modern scientific tools to examine the world around them. They see things happening -- disease, famine, earthquakes, etc. -- that are all entirely beyond their ability to explain or control. They ascribe it to some supernatural entity. Then someone comes along and tells them that, "Well, actually, disease is caused by tiny organisms that you can't see, and I can't show you; or by mistakes in tiny chains within your own cells (which are also too small to be seen)". Is it any more "logical" for them to accept this theory, than the theory that there are supernatural forces?

I know...you'll say that may have been a relevant argument once, but not today. So I give you situation number two.

Situation 2 -- A French farmer claims that aliens have contacted him, and told him that there are no gods. He says that they tell him they created the earth, and have overseen our development; they are no preparing to return and reveal themselves to us, once we can show we are advanced/developed enough to accept them. Someone hears this, and believes it, and therefore becomes an atheist.

How is this person's decision to become an atheist any more "logical" or "rational" than any theist? Or, how about...

Situation 3 -- A kid is born into an atheist family, and simply taught that atheism is right. He is not presented with any alternate beliefs, he's not even given any real evidence or proof for atheism...he accepts it uncritically as received wisdom, because it is what he's been taught to believe.

How is this person's decision to be an atheist any more "logical" or "rational" than the person who becomes a theist because that's what their parents taught them?

I'm going to have to disagree here - atheism is the more logical, or more accurately the more reasonable position*. Atheism is a position that can be reached through the application of reason and skepticism, whereas theism requires the temporary suspension of skepticism (in the evaluation of that one particular belief). That atheism can be reached via irrational thought processes does not change the fact that it can also be reached using reason and skepticism, and is thus the more reasonable position.

Consider the following three arguments:

Argument One

P1: The moon is made of green cheese.
P2: I study at Melbourne University.
C: Therefore, I live in a residential college.

Argument Two

P1: If I study at Melbourne University then the moon is made of green cheese and I live in a residential college.
P2: I study at Melbourne University.
C: Therefore, I live in a residential college.

Argument Three

P1: If I study at Melbourne University then I live in a residential college.
P2: I study at Melbourne University.
C: Therefore, I live in a residential college.

Of the arguments above, number one is neither valid nor sound, number two is valid but not sound, and number three is valid and sound. Yet all three of them have the same conclusion. I would argue that it is still reasonable to believe that I live in a residential college - that there are illogical and unreasonable arguments that can lead to that conclusion is inconsequential, the important thing is that there is a logical, reasonable argument that leads to that conclusion. The same point applies to the labelling of atheism as a logical, or rational, position - there are an infinite number of invalid or unreasonable arguments for any proposition. All that matters are the reasonable ones.

*Because I don't want people to think I'm talking exclusively about deductive logic, which is often just referred to as 'logic'.

[Wolfman]

Not quite, humanism is an ideology, whereas atheism is not, which is why i chose examples which where not ideological in their nature, but can form the basis of a common identity and can related to groups which share a common interest.

How do you feel about the two examples I gave?

AH, do you feel the same about skepticism? Is a non belief in psychics, or homoeopathy something to not get worked up about? Is that equally stupid?
Okay, I'll address your questions in more detail.
Should, for instance, one not fly the flag of ones nation as citizens of that nation can also be racists, psychics, Raelians, Communists or neo-Nazis?Actually, in my experience, the flag of a country represents specific values held by that country. For example, Canada has a Constitution that clearly states specific values for which my country stands. When I show the Canadian flag, I am demonstrating my agreement with those principles. Sure, there are Canadians who may be neo-nazis who will fly a Canadian flag also...but again, I'd be able to point out that their values contradicted the values for which Canada stands. The flying a the flag specifically represents (for me) my agreement with the values that my country stands for. And if my country were to change its constitution to one that I disagreed strongly with, or took actions that I felt violated the beliefs for which my country is supposed to stand, I would refuse to display my country's flag.
Should one not wear the colours of ones sports team as some fans may be racists, psychics, Raelians, Communists or neo-Nazis?Please read Richard Dawkins' own explanation (http://outcampaign.org/) of the "Out Campaign", and the reasons he gives for wearing these t-shirts:
Atheists have always been at the forefront of rational thinking and beacons of enlightenment, and now you can share your idealism by being part of the OUT CampaignFirst, I'm not "idealistic" about being an atheist, because atheism doesn't stand for anything to be idealistic about! Second, while I have no problem with promoting "rational thinking", a huge number of atheist are not -- as I've pointed out numerous times -- anything even approaching "rational".
The OUT Campaign allows individuals to let others know they are not alone. It can also be a nice way of opening a conversation and help to demolish the negative stereotypes of atheists.Exactly how would having neo-Nazis, or Raelians, or any other such group wearing Atheist t-shirts accomplish the goal of "demolishing the negative stereotypes of atheists"?

Now, if my favorite sports team said that I should wear their colors in order to show that all the people who support their team are intelligent and rational individuals who never behave badly, I'd consider that just as stupid.
AH, do you feel the same about skepticism? Is a non belief in psychics, or homoeopathy something to not get worked up about? Is that equally stupid?Ummm...skepticism is not defined as the non-belief in psychics, or homeopathy, or anything like that. Really, I question your understanding of the basic subject if you make arguments like this.

Skepticism is a specific way of thinking, a specific way of examining the world around you, a specific way of reaching conclusions about what I believe, and do not believe. It means examining ones beliefs, examining other beliefs, challenging beliefs, not accepting what others teach you just because they said so, etc.

[Wolfman]

I'm going to have to disagree here - atheism is the more logical, or more accurately the more reasonable position*. Atheism is a position that can be reached through the application of reason and skepticism, whereas theism requires the temporary suspension of skepticism (in the evaluation of that one particular belief). That atheism can be reached via irrational thought processes does not change the fact that it can also be reached using reason and skepticism, and is thus the more reasonable position.I understand and appreciate your argument; for the most part, I'd likely agree with you -- although I think I would not consider the terms "logical" and "reasonable" to be quite so interchangeable or synonymous as you do.

But allow me to present you with a situation that I actually face right now (and that is somewhat the cornerstone of a talk I'm hoping to give at TAM 6, if it is accepted).

As most people who know me here know, I have set up a non-profit organization to work with a minority group in south-western China, the Mosuo (click in the link in my sig if you want more info about this). They are in one of the most remote areas of the world, high in the Himalayas. Until very recently (ie. the past 5-10 years), many of them were pretty much shut off from the rest of the world. Many Mosuo villages still have no electricity; most have no running water. Religious beliefs are part-and-parcel of their daily lives.

Of course, they face disease, injuries, and all the other problems that afflict the rest of mankind. And they largely attribute such things to supernatural forces. Illness is caused by evil spirits. Accidents are caused by angering the local gods. Etc.

Here's the problem.

Decent hospitals and doctors for many Mosuo are days away...getting there involves travel by horse (or if you're rich, a motorcycle) over dangerous, twisting mountain paths, until you get to a main road, where you drive over more twisting mountain roads, hoping to avoid a landslide, or a collision with a vehicle coming the other way. Once you get there, the cost of medical care is so high that you usually can only afford the most basic treatment.

The result? Sending someone to a hospital is largely ineffective. If they are already very sick, or their situation very urgent, odds are they'll die before they ever get to the hospital. Even if the get there, they may not be able to afford adequate treatment for whatever the problem is -- and they'll bankrupt the entire family doing it.

By contrast, if they stay at home, and the local priest comes and does his various rites and prayers, more of them will survive (and without bankrupting the family). Sometimes they'll just get better on their own (and have it attributed to the priest's ministrations). Sometimes the treatments that the priest advises them to use (local herbs, or other such things) will actually work (even though most of them won't do a thing).

But what the people see is that if you call the local priest, the odds that the person will survive are higher than the odds of them surviving if they go to the hospital.

Now, try using science. Explain to them about germs, viruses, etc. They can't see these things, they have no means to do so. If you actually bring a microscope to show them, they'll still not believe that something that incredibly small could possibly cause so many problems.

Here is the part that I find most interesting. In visiting these villages, I find that it is those who are the most credulous -- the ones I would in general consider to be least skeptical, and most likely to believe anything that anyone tells them -- that are the most likely to accept what we tell them about disease, germs, etc. Whereas the ones who are more critical thinkers, who demand logical and consistent proof, are the ones most consistently resistant to what we're telling them.

Why? Because, given their experiences, everything they have seen, and their current ability to test what they believe, vs. what we believe, the most reasonable or logical conclusion for them to reach is that their beliefs are correct, and ours are wrong.

I appreciate that this is a 'special circumstance' argument, but it is made from a true situation, not just a hypothetical, and is used as a more extreme example to illustrate my point. How would you argue that, in this situation, given the specific situation and restrictions, their beliefs "require the temporary suspension of skepticism". Quite the opposite, I'd argue; in fact, I'd argue that the true skeptical thinker, the truly rational logician, if in their situation, would be most justified in taking the supernatural, theistic view, as opposed to the natural, atheistic view.

Now, of course, if we take them out of their specific environment/situation, or provide a way for them to have access to tools/resources they do not currently have, then the situation would change...and the logical/rational/skeptical individuals among them would, more than likely, end up embracing an atheist worldview. But I do not agree that theistic beliefs always "require the temporary suspension of skepticism".

[Bikewer]

I tend to think of religion as an immature means of coping with the world. There is a big (name father-figure of choice here) in the sky who has a master plan for all of us and will reveal all....Sometime.
Don't worry, don't ask questions, you wouldn't understand anyway. Just let Daddy take care of things.

Due to the way human beings have evolved, as primates in small groups or bands with a strong leader (sort of a Neolithic silverback, if you will), this is a very appealing thing.
Indeed, human leaders have milked this to the nines through all of history. Kings, priests, chiefs, presidents...All silverbacks.
Most humans don't want to be completely responsible for their lives. (sorry, Libertarians....) They want a silverback to take charge and handle things. They might grouse and gripe and wish they had a different silverback...
God is the ultimate silverback; highly appealing to us primate-evolved humans.

A mature philosophy would be Humanism. We are responsible for our own destiny, and capable of ordering our own society. It is incumbent upon us to see that this life (the only one we'll ever experience) is the best possible for as many human beings as possible.
(Alas, we don't seem to be doing very well in this regard.)

[Loss Leader]

Atheism is still uncommon in the world and religion has survived any attempts by atheists to eliminate it. Why is this? It’s because atheism doesn’t provide what is necessary for a society to survive (a social/moral structure).


Your conclusion does not follow from your assertions (even if they are all true).

Religion could be (and, in fact, appears to actually be) hard-wired into the brains of humans. But corelation does not indicate causation. Most people have religious inclinations does not mean that there is any purpose to them. It only means that they exist.

Most people have an appendix. Most people have a little toe. Neither is necessary for success as an individual or for our success as a species.

Religion may be a vestige left from a time when it was necessary. Or it may be a random evolutionary trait that didn't harm the species enough to get bred out.

Any conclusion is nothing but an unsubstantiated guess.

[billydkid]

I must have missed those bits of history where atheists have tried to stamp out religion. First, there is no justification in general for choosing to believe something for which there is no reason to believe. All such belief is arbitrary. The question all religions ask is not "Is there a God". The questions they all ask and claim to know is this: "Is there the God our religion claims there is." There could, I suppose, be a "God" of some sorts and all religions could still all be completely wrong. The problem with religion is that it claims to know something it could not possibly know. The problem with all faith is that it is all arbitrary. Yes, the world would be better off if people stopped deciding to adopt belief systems and designing their lives around them arbitrarily. It would be far better off if people conducted themselves based on the realities of life rather than on invented stories about he nature of reality. To presume to say that you know the nature of the creator (if there is one) and to presume to act in accordance with his will is bad in many respects. Not the list of which is that it gives people personal justification for treating other people badly. And all religions do this. It may not be all they do, but they all judge and excluded and diminish the personhood of others not of their particular brand of baseless belief system.

I have to amend this - yes the Soviets and the Chinese were anti-religion - but I don't really consider them atheists really. They still adhered to irrational belief systems. Also, the comment about having no moral bearing without religion. I assume you would accept that religion is man-made. Therefore you would have to accept that the notions of morality contained in religion, such as they are, came from man. Unless you believe that God actually gave each of these religions their moral codes. If that's the case, why didn't he give all of them the same ones?

[Wolfman]

Atheism is still uncommon in the world and religion has survived any attempts by atheists to eliminate it. Why is this? It’s because atheism doesn’t provide what is necessary for a society to survive (a social/moral structure).Having addressed some of the atheist perspectives, guess I'll turn my hand to this one, also.

The argument that "atheism" doesn't provide a social/moral structure would be largely true. But that's a rather naive argument at best.However, there are specific belief systems, philosophies, and ideologies that are atheistic, but also provide a very cohesive social/moral structure. I've already given the example of Humanism.

And may I also point out that there are countless religions that have disappeared over the years...and that pretty much all of them were destroyed by other religions?

And while there have been efforts in a few countries to eliminate religion entirely, most countries in the world have never in their entire history tried to do so. Would not the fact that the vast majority of countries in the world either actively support a particular religion, or at least promote freedom of religion, be more likely to account for the continued existence of religion?

[Wolfman]

I have to amend this - yes the Soviets and the Chinese were anti-religion - but I don't really consider them atheists really. They still adhered to irrational belief systems.
Ai ya...not this argument again? "I don't really consider them atheists?"

If they don't believe in god, they are atheists. That's it. End of argument. No other requirements. "Rational" belief systems have nothing to do with it. You don't get to pick-and-choose who are atheists, and just reject the ones you don't like.

"Do not believe that god exists" = Atheist. Regardless of race, political beliefs, moral beliefs, or whether or not the reasons for your lack of belief are rational or irrational.

[dglas]

So what, Wolfman, if it could be shown that theism is contradictory to humanism?

Note that my question was concise and to the point. Please keep your answer likewise.


Side note:
Looks like there isn't much empetus to get a hospital (or the scale-equivalent) in your area. In fact, as you describe it, it looks like there is resistance to doing so. Now, why would that be? Do you think it would be a good idea to get medical treatment there? How do you propose doing so? How do you propose breaking the entrenched inertia?

[Moochie]

Seems to me that religions, like so many other "systems" devised by and for humans, all come a cropper because humans simply cannot stand being "good" for very long, i.e., they always find a rule or three that they figure doesn't apply to them and down crashes the whole edifice.

M.

[Wolfman]

So what, Wolfman, if it could be shown that theism is contradictory to humanism?Actually, there are two schools of thought in this regard (as I said, there will never be 100% agreement within any organization). There are Humanists who argue that theism is implicitly excluded from Humanism; others that theism and Humanism can be reconciled.

For those who go for the latter argument, the focus tends to be more on moral beliefs, than on science. Normally, in theism, one accepts knowledge from one's god, and what is "right" or "wrong", and how you should behave, fairly uncritically. It is right because that god says so.

Religious Humanists take a slightly different approach; they would generally be what would be considered "liberals", in that they do not subscribe to literal interpretations of their scriptures. For example, the typical Christian Humanist reasoning would be, "I believe in God, and I believe that God created me in His image. Therefore, he created me with a rational mind, and the ability to use it to determine for myself the difference between right and wrong. It is therefore my responsibility, as God's creation, and being created in His image, to critically examine all moral teachings, and determine for myself which ones are proper, and which ones are not. The moral values encapsulated in Humanism are the ones that I believe are closest to the truth, so I will use those as my standard of evaluation." So Christian Humanists would reject the inerrancy of scriptures, and even consider some of the things (especially in the Old Testament) that people were supposedly told to do by God to be "wrong" or "immoral". Religious Humanists accept that the moral/ethical doctrines taught by Humanism are true, and that the teachings of their own religion must fit within those moral/ethical guidelines; where their religion teaches something that goes against Humanist moral values, they will conclude that the religious teaching is wrong, and does not reflect God's true intent or meaning.

I think the assumption of most Humanists is that a theist who goes this far, and continues to examine their beliefs, will tend to eventually become an atheist (and, in fact, in my own experience, this happens a fair bit).

Note that my question was concise and to the point. Please keep your answer likewise.Oops...sorry...:p
Side note:
Looks like there isn't much empetus to get a hospital (or the scale-equivalent) in your area. In fact, as you describe it, it looks like there is resistance to doing so. Now, why would that be? Do you think it would be a good idea to get medical treatment there? How do you propose doing so? How do you propose breaking the entrenched inertia?Getting a hospital in that area simply is not practical. Not only are there not funds to support it, there is no infrastructure -- no electricity in many areas, no running water or plumbing systems, and an economy that is almost entirely a barter economy. And that is ignoring the difficulty of getting qualified doctors and nurses to live/work in such a remote area. I'm talking very remote.

One "solution" is presenting information in a way that they will more readily accept; for example, as I've detailed elsewhere, I ended up with one of the local priests interpreting my "germs" and "viruses" as just a westerner's words for evil spirits; and medicines and medical treatment as just another kind of ceremony to get rid of those evil spirits. This has led to him recommending medical treatment more often to those he visits. It isn't the "truth"; but it accomplishes the goal we want, to get more people seeking proper medical treatment.

But the pragmatic truth is that change is going to be slow, and that in the case of most adults, it will be difficult to impossible to change. So we are focusing by far the majority of our efforts on the younger generation, the school children. To do extensive and comprehensive education while they are still very young, and raise them with an understanding that is impossible to communicate to their elders.

But I am constantly aware that the absolutely most certain way to guarantee failure is to present this as an adversarial situation, that they are "wrong", and I am "right". They must be presented with both views, given time to evaluate and understand the information they are being given, and then decide for themselves that the 'scientific' viewpoint is, in fact, the more logical and reasonable of the two.

[dglas]

Seems to me that religions, like so many other "systems" devised by and for humans, all come a cropper because humans simply cannot stand being "good" for very long, i.e., they always find a rule or three that they figure doesn't apply to them and down crashes the whole edifice.

M.

Sigh. The presupposition of intrinsic evil hard at work again.

We are taught to do so, Moochie. The moralists teach us to. It is one thing to account for the worst; it is another to assume it, to tach it, to promote it. Most religions tell us that we like to be "evil," that we want to be "evil," that we ARE "evil." And then they tell us we need to internalize artificial normative structures to control that "evil." Think of it as creating a market for your goods.

How's your concept of self today?

[Nihilus]

My point is that the reasons that many people are atheists are far from logical.
If that was actually your original point, there would be no argument from me. However, you have been interchangeably swapping atheism for its methodology this entire discussion.

You are contradicting yourself. Earlier in the thread, you keenly addressed how atheism is not the same thing as whatever active philosophical position it's coupled with.
I hate even identifying myself as an atheist -- the term means absolutely nothing beyond the fact I don't believe in any god. It says nothing about the reasons why I don't believe in that god.

And yet now, you make the very mistake of saying atheism is illogical because of the active beliefs certain people have with it. such as:
Raelians are a brilliant example of this. They are completely atheistic -- rather militantly so, in fact -- yet are atheists because they believe that aliens have revealed some "higher plan" to their leader.
Flawed logic:
P1: Theism is no less logical than Raelianism.
P2: All Raelians are Atheists.
C: Theism is no less logical than Atheism.

And, there is no bare minimum status of available knowledge (short of complete sensory deprivation) where concocting an imaginary daddy/friend to explain something about our reality is more logical than relying simply on our available senses. None.

This is why atheism (as a default position) is more logical.

[Moochie]

Sigh. The presupposition of intrinsic evil hard at work again.

We are taught to do so, Moochie. The moralists teach us to. It is one thing to account for the worst; it is another to assume it, to tach it, to promote it. Most religions tell us that we like to be "evil," that we want to be "evil," that we ARE "evil." And then they tell us we need to internalize artificial normative structures to control that "evil." Think of it as creating a market for your goods.

How's your concept of self today?

Oh, I quite agree. That's why I put "good" in quotation marks. Personally, other than a desire to survive, I don't presuppose anything in people. It just seems that people generally cannot agree on just what it is they need to survive. Contrast someone like Rupert Murdoch with your humble self. Or contrast someone like me with that kid living in the dust of Darfur.

M.

[blobru]

Seems to me that religions, like so many other "systems" devised by and for humans, all come a cropper because humans simply cannot stand being "good" for very long, i.e., they always find a rule or three that they figure doesn't apply to them and down crashes the whole edifice.


Hmm... I'd say Xtianity at least expects as much. Rather than crashing down, the edifice is built on failure upon failure to be "good".

Part of the "logic" of Xtianity, part of its attraction, its iconography of sin and suffering, is that people are doomed to fail, and want to be forgiven when they do. Their failure need not always relate to some standard their church sets, either; it may be one society sets, or one they set for themselves. The "evil" that dooms one to fail God, state, and/or self blurs into one for parishioners.

So, strange to say, the greatest danger to Xtianity may not be from angry atheists, but happy Xtians. :)

ETA: that is one handsome housecat, M! Even puts Ralph Kramden's puss to shame. ;)

[dglas]

Actually, there are two schools of thought in this regard (as I said, there will never be 100% agreement within any organization). There are Humanists who argue that theism is implicitly excluded from Humanism; others that theism and Humanism can be reconciled.

Ahem. Theists have, historically, been quite vocal in excluding humanism from their dogma. THEY seem to think that the two are mutually exclusive. It is not a case of humanists assuming anything about theists. It is a case of saying, "I accept that you believe that."


For those who go for the latter argument, the focus tends to be more on moral beliefs, than on science. Normally, in theism, one accepts knowledge from one's god, and what is "right" or "wrong", and how you should behave, fairly uncritically. It is right because that god says so.

Religious Humanists take a slightly different approach; they would generally be what would be considered "liberals", in that they do not subscribe to literal interpretations of their scriptures. For example, the typical Christian Humanist reasoning would be, "I believe in God, and I believe that God created me in His image. Therefore, he created me with a rational mind, and the ability to use it to determine for myself the difference between right and wrong. It is therefore my responsibility, as God's creation, and being created in His image, to critically examine all moral teachings, and determine for myself which ones are proper, and which ones are not. The moral values encapsulated in Humanism are the ones that I believe are closest to the truth, so I will use those as my standard of evaluation." So Christian Humanists would reject the inerrancy of scriptures, and even consider some of the things (especially in the Old Testament) that people were supposedly told to do by God to be "wrong" or "immoral". Religious Humanists accept that the moral/ethical doctrines taught by Humanism are true, and that the teachings of their own religion must fit within those moral/ethical guidelines; where their religion teaches something that goes against Humanist moral values, they will conclude that the religious teaching is wrong, and does not reflect God's true intent or meaning.

I think the assumption of most Humanists is that a theist who goes this far, and continues to examine their beliefs, will tend to eventually become an atheist (and, in fact, in my own experience, this happens a fair bit).

Oops...sorry...:p

Well.
Not only were you not concise and to the point, you didn't even answer the question. please try again.

So what, Wolfman, if it could be shown that theism is contradictory to humanism?


Getting a hospital in that area simply is not practical. Not only are there not funds to support it, there is no infrastructure -- no electricity in many areas, no running water or plumbing systems, and an economy that is almost entirely a barter economy. And that is ignoring the difficulty of getting qualified doctors and nurses to live/work in such a remote area. I'm talking very remote.

One doesn't need medical qualifications. Have you considered basic first aid? Band-aids and hydrogen peroxide? Boiling water? There are very simple methods that can reap disproportionate rewards. Cooking food. Washing hands in potable water? If there's no sewage system and no running water? Is the disease incidence monstrous or is the area just very cold or very, very hot?

Wait a minute. You mentioned motorcycles? There are mechanics there? Do they fix broken motorcycles, or do they have spiritual rites when a motorcycle "dies?"

Yes, I am being "over the top" here, but that's because you deliberately avoided my question by focusing on the words "hospital" and "doctor." If there are no hospitals, doctors or nurses, (no one better qualified than you) then you are the most qualified.

Start with the basics of food safety.

What am I doing? I'm sure there are whole departments of highly paid people deliberating about how best to allocate a very small amount of money in order to address the problem...


One "solution" is presenting information in a way that they will more readily accept; for example, as I've detailed elsewhere, I ended up with one of the local priests interpreting my "germs" and "viruses" as just a westerner's words for evil spirits; and medicines and medical treatment as just another kind of ceremony to get rid of those evil spirits. This has led to him recommending medical treatment more often to those he visits. It isn't the "truth"; but it accomplishes the goal we want, to get more people seeking proper medical treatment.

The goal is to mystify science?

And some wonder why atheists are depicted as lying in order to covertly undermine theism.


But the pragmatic truth is that change is going to be slow, and that in the case of most adults, it will be difficult to impossible to change. So we are focusing by far the majority of our efforts on the younger generation, the school children. To do extensive and comprehensive education while they are still very young, and raise them with an understanding that is impossible to communicate to their elders.

What, exactly, are you trying to do with this culture? Never mind. That's a whole other thread.


But I am constantly aware that the absolutely most certain way to guarantee failure is to present this as an adversarial situation, that they are "wrong", and I am "right". They must be presented with both views, given time to evaluate and understand the information they are being given, and then decide for themselves that the 'scientific' viewpoint is, in fact, the more logical and reasonable of the two.

Logical? Logic can prove anything with the proper premises. Reasonable? Reasonable is a matter of public perception. Efficacy is not quite so subject to interpretation. Science is not more logical, nor is it more "reasonable." It is more effective...

Knowing that a thing works is not the same thing as knowing why a thing works. Knowing why a thing works allows you to create more things that work.
Teachers don't just provide, they enable.

[Moochie]

ETA: that is one handsome housecat, M! Even puts Ralph Kramden's puss to shame. ;)


I'll tell him. Not that he doesn't already know that he's the best cat in the world. :)

M.

[Wolfman]

Ahem. Theists have, historically, been quite vocal in excluding humanism from their dogma. THEY seem to think that the two are mutually exclusive. It is not a case of humanists assuming anything about theists. It is a case of saying, "I accept that you believe that."Wrong.

Some humanists have excluded Humanism from their dogma. But try googling "Christian Humanism", "Jewish Humanism", "Muslim Humanism", "Religious Humanism", etc., and you will find that there are actually quite a few theists who embrace the moral aspects of Humanism.
Well.
Not only were you not concise and to the point, you didn't even answer the question. please try again.

So what, Wolfman, if it could be shown that theism is contradictory to humanism?I didn't answer the question because I don't believe that it can be shown. However, if it could be shown (to my satisfaction) that theism and humanism are mutually exclusive, I'd of course still be a Humanist. You might as well ask me, "If it could be shown that you are a woman, and not a man, what would you do?" Of course, there are tons of possible answers; but since I do not believe that you will ever prove such a thing, answering the question is rather pointless.
One doesn't need medical qualifications. Have you considered basic first aid? Band-aids and hydrogen peroxide? Boiling water? There are very simple methods that can reap disproportionate rewards. Cooking food. Washing hands in potable water? If there's no sewage system and no running water? Is the disease incidence monstrous or is the area just very cold or very, very hot?Ummm...I'm not talking about problems that can be treated with bandaids. I'm talking about serious medical conditions. Current treatments for minor problems such as you describe are already pretty much adequate, and things like boiling water and cooking food were a practice long before anyone came there.
Wait a minute. You mentioned motorcycles? There are mechanics there? Do they fix broken motorcycles, or do they have spiritual rites when a motorcycle "dies?"1) Some villages, but not all, will have someone who can afford a motorcycle. 2) "Blessing" a motorcycle would be pretty standard. 3) Yes, when the motorcycle breaks down, they fix it manually, not by 'praying' for it. However, in this case, you are able to very obviously, visibly, physically demonstrate the efficacy of such repairs. There's no equivalent when you're dealing with viruses or genetic conditions.
Yes, I am being "over the top" here, but that's because you deliberately avoided my question by focusing on the words "hospital" and "doctor." If there are no hospitals, doctors or nurses, (no one better qualified than you) then you are the most qualified.Sorry...don't quite get your point here. Will move on.
Start with the basics of food safety.

What am I doing? I'm sure there are whole departments of highly paid people deliberating about how best to allocate a very small amount of money in order to address the problem...Well, the very small amount of money part is correct. "Highly paid"? Not a chance. We can't remotely afford the costs of professionals...we are reliant on the generosity of those who donate their time and skills.
The goal is to mystify science?The goal is to stop people from suffering/dying. I'd far rather 'compromise' the 'truth', and see more people seeking proper/adequate medical care, than to stubbornly insist on making everyone accept my views, and sacrificing the local people. As I said, such changes will be very slow, and I believe that treating their immediate physical needs is a far greater priority (regardless of how it is achieved) than making them think like me.
And some wonder why atheists are depicted as lying in order to covertly undermine theism. Quite the opposite. The Mosuo have had plenty of people trying to make them change their beliefs. Communists trying to force them to abandon their religion. Christians trying to convert them. One of the reasons why I was accepted by them, and that they respect me, is that they know I don't agree with their beliefs, but don't try to force them to believe the same things I do. They have no problem with the idea of letting their children learn both what they believe, and what I believe...and then letting those children choose for themselves what they want to believe. What they object to is people treating them as ignorant, inferior, or stupid, and trying to force them to change.

I'm about as far as you can be from either "lying", or being "covert". Every Mosuo knows I'm an atheist, and it is in fact a common point of conversation. But I don't see why any of them should bother to listen to me, or even begin to try to understand or respect my beliefs, if I don't first listen to, and try to understand their beliefs.
What, exactly, are you trying to do with this culture? Never mind. That's a whole other thread.Yes, it is. And it can be found here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72651).
Logical? Logic can prove anything with the proper premises. Reasonable? Reasonable is a matter of public perception. Efficacy is not quite so subject to interpretation. Science is not more logical, nor is it more "reasonable." It is more effective...And my focus is on what is most effective in accomplishing the most immediate needs.
Knowing that a thing works is not the same thing as knowing why a thing works. Knowing why a thing works allows you to create more things that work.
Teachers don't just provide, they enable.I'd agree with that.

[billydkid]

Ai ya...not this argument again? "I don't really consider them atheists?"

If they don't believe in god, they are atheists. That's it. End of argument. No other requirements. "Rational" belief systems have nothing to do with it. You don't get to pick-and-choose who are atheists, and just reject the ones you don't like.

"Do not believe that god exists" = Atheist. Regardless of race, political beliefs, moral beliefs, or whether or not the reasons for your lack of belief are rational or irrational.Okay, try this. Yes they were atheists, but they were atheists for the purpose of their agenda. People who are just atheists don't have any agenda. People invariably conflate atheism with the evils of some kind of atheist collectivism, implying that oppressive atheist regimes derive their oppressiveness from their atheism and that the two are somehow linked when it is more than obvious that oppression can have any religious face. Atheism itself has no agenda - it is simply the lack of belief in a deity. The only reason the Soviets cared about religion is that it interfered with their agenda of allegiance to the state and it could reasonably be said that their religion was worship of the state. So with respect to the notion of worshiping something bigger than yourself - in their case the state - they were not atheist. The simply replaced the supernatural God with an earthly one.

[Wolfman]

Okay, try this. Yes they were atheists, but they were atheists for the purpose of their agenda. People who are just atheists don't have any agenda. People invariably conflate atheism with the evils of some kind of atheist collectivism, implying that oppressive atheist regimes derive their oppressiveness from their atheism and that the two are somehow linked when it is more than obvious that oppression can have any religious face. Atheism itself has no agenda - it is simply the lack of belief in a deity. The only reason the Soviets cared about religion is that it interfered with their agenda of allegiance to the state and it could reasonably be said that their religion was worship of the state. So with respect to the notion of worshiping something bigger than yourself - in their case the state - they were not atheist. The simply replaced the supernatural God with an earthly one.
If you don't believe in god for bad reasons, then you're not an atheist? What kind of argument is that?

"Don't believe in god" = atheist. It's just about the most simple equation possible. There are no codicils or waivers. "Oh, sorry, if we determine that the reasons you don't believe in any god are objectionable, we won't let you call yourself an atheist"?

Dude, I live in China. I know the people you're talking about. They are atheists. They have been born and raised in an education system that told them there was no god. They do not believe in god. They do not believe in a supernatural realm. They are atheist.

Now, if they choose to place certain human leaders in a position of unquestioned or overwhelming power, that is their choice (albeit one I do not agree with). But they do not believe those leaders are gods, or have supernatural powers. They believe they are normal humans, just like you and me.

Your argument is as ridiculous as Christians who, when faced with atrocities like the Crusades, say, "Oh, but they weren't real Christians". Yes they were. They read the same Bible, they followed the same god, etc.

You don't get to pick-and-choose just because you happen to dislike or disagree with them. There is nothing whatsoever that says "If you chose to become an atheist for the wrong reason, you're not an atheist". An atheist is any person who does not believe in god. Period. End of argument. Conclusion. Finished. Over. Done with.

[thaiboxerken]

You're missing the point, those "atheist" regimes who did such vile acts did so not because of atheism, but because of political ideology. Atheism, itself, doesn't say anything about killing religious people or protecting them. To say the Soviets and Chinese are atheist regimes is as meaningless as saying they are regimes that don't preach that Santa Clause is real.

[Wolfman]

You're missing the point, those "atheist" regimes who did such vile acts did so not because of atheism, but because of political ideology. Atheism, itself, doesn't say anything about killing religious people or protecting them. To say the Soviets and Chinese are atheist regimes is as meaningless as saying they are regimes that don't preach that Santa Clause is real.No, you are missing the point.

I'm not saying that those regimes did such vile acts "because of atheism". I've never said any such thing, this is a complete straw man argument. Try reading what I've said here.

Atheism doesn't make anyone do anything -- good or bad. It is not a belief in anything...no moral code, no political values, nothing.

There are atheists who have done good things (but it wasn't "because they were atheists"); and there are atheists who have done bad things (but it wasn't "because they were atheists"). But they were all atheists.

My god, I don't know how people can have so much difficulty with such an incredibly simple concept.

"DON'T BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD" = ATHEIST

It has nothing to do with the reasons why you don't believe in god. It has nothing to do with what other beliefs you have. It has nothing to do with if you do good things, or you do bad things.

[thaiboxerken]

But the USSR and China are not ATHEIST regimes. That's the point.

[Wolfman]

Okay, let's create a new category.

Theist = any person who believes in some kind of god

Agnostic = any person who does not specifically believe in a god, but does not discount the possibility of a god's existence (can also be considered atheist, but not necessarily so)

Atheist = any person who believes that no god exists, unless they do bad things

Untheist = any person who believes that no god exists, but does bad things

[Wolfman]

But the USSR and China are not ATHEIST regimes. That's the point.If by "atheist regime", you mean "a regime who's actions and policies are based on atheist values or beliefs", you are correct.

If by "atheist regime", you mean "a regime who's leaders disavow the existence of any god", then you are wrong.

But the people of China -- the people about who I am talking, and in whom I have referred to in every post I've made on the subject -- are largely atheist. The government leaders I've met and talked with are atheist. They do not believe that any god exists. Most of my Chinese friends are atheist. They do not believe that any god exists.

Any argument to the contrary is self-serving sophistry.

[thaiboxerken]

Please explain how the USSR and China regimes were Atheist regimes.

[Wolfman]

Please explain how the USSR and China regimes were Atheist regimes.The Chinese Communist Party officially states in its beliefs that it disavows the existence of any god. What are you going to call them? Theist? Agnostic?

"Sorry, guys, but I don't like what you stand for, so despite the fact that you hold the non-belief in any god as one of your basic tenets, I'm nevertheless going to call you theists."

Do the actions or policies of the CCP have anything to do with the fact they are atheist? No. No more than the food that I decided to have for lunch has anything to do with the fact that I'm an atheist. I'm an atheist who ate lunch; not someone who ate lunch because I'm an atheist. They are brutal leaders who are also atheists; they are not people who did brutal things because they are atheists.

Come on -- we've got atheist, theist, and agnostic. Please tell me, if not atheist, in which category should I put people who completely, specifically disavow the existence of any god?

[thaiboxerken]

The Chinese Communist Party officially states in its beliefs that it disavows the existence of any god. What are you going to call them? Theist? Agnostic?

How about correct, on that point? The fact is, if they're official party line said that Santa Clause doesn't exist, I doubt that people would be calling them an anti-Santa Clause regime.

To say the USSR and China are atheist regimes is meaningless. Atheism has absolutely no influence on their politics or ideologies.

[Wolfman]

How about correct, on that point? The fact is, if they're official party line said that Santa Clause doesn't exist, I doubt that people would be calling them an anti-Santa Clause regime.

To say the USSR and China are atheist regimes is meaningless. Atheism has absolutely no influence on their politics or ideologies.
Dude, where exactly does the definition of "atheist" say, "You are only an atheist if it influences your politics or ideology"? Or "If you don't believe in god, but it does not influence your politics or ideology, then you aren't an atheist"?

I'm an atheist. However, my atheism does not in any way influence my politics or ideologies. It is entirely irrelevant to my politics and ideologies, in fact.

Oops...damn...guess I can no longer call myself an atheist.

[thaiboxerken]

How can you call a regime, a government, atheist if atheism has nothing to do with it's ideology or politics? People are atheist, not governments or regimes.

[Wolfman]

How can you call a regime, a government, atheist if atheism has nothing to do with it's ideology or politics? People are atheist, not governments or regimes.I suppose then that you must object to me referring to them as a "Chinese" regime; since being Chinese has nothing to do with their ideology or politics? They could be "Chinese" and be democratic, or socialist, or communist; "people are Chinese, not governments or regimes".

This is ridiculous. The terms "Chinese" and "atheist", in this context, are descriptive labels that designate specific aspects that help differentiate this government from other governments. I call them "Chinese" because they are located in China, and not in America, or Australia; not because the label "Chinese" has anything to do with their ideology or politics. I call them "atheist" because they specifically state atheism as one of their tenets, as opposed to other governments that A) state belief in a specific god or gods as one of their tenets, or B) do not include any specific statement of belief as part of their tenets.

To demonstrate the basic fallacy in your argument, let us just take your original quote, and replace the word "atheist" with "Chinese"
How can you call a regime, a government, Chinese if being Chinese has nothing to do with it's ideology or politics? People are Chinese, not governments or regimes.

[thaiboxerken]

I suppose then that you must object to me referring to them as a "Chinese" regime; since being Chinese has nothing to do with their ideology or politics?

You can call them whatever you want, but how will you identify which countries' government you're talking about without naming the country? "Atheist government" is no more descriptive than "non-psychic governments."

The USA's official motto is "In God We Trust" does that mean out government is theistic?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm gonna' have to take issue with you on this one, skeptigirl.

I've started a number of threads on similar topics, and joined others. I've found a number of atheists here who very vocally and strongly express opinions such as the following:

* Most of the world's problems are because of theism (or variations on this theme), and the corollary that eliminating theism would make the world a better place.

* That allowing parents to teach theism to their children is tantamount to child abuse

To return your rather aggressive (and in my opinion, unfounded) accusations against Dogdoctor, I'd have to assume that given the frequency of such arguments being expressed in these forums, that you either are being intentionally obtuse, or have not read enough of the posts in this regard to be able to comment authoritatively on what has or has not been said by others here.But Dd repeatedly painted my posts personally with his broad brush. And I said to him repeatedly he was incorrectly restating my words and he ignored that and continued with the personal misrepresentations.

Regardless of the fact militant atheists exist, there are legitimate reasons to promote an anti-theist position. Dd ignored my discussion of those legit reasons opting instead to claim it was hateful and wrong to not take his position that dissing religion was morally wrong.

[Mobyseven]

I understand and appreciate your argument; for the most part, I'd likely agree with you -- although I think I would not consider the terms "logical" and "reasonable" to be quite so interchangeable or synonymous as you do.

I wasn't actually using them interchangably. Sorry, I thought I'd made that clear - they are related, hence I used both in my post, but when talking about something being logical, I mean there is a sound logical argument that supports it, whereas when I talk about something being reasonable I mean that it is a conclusion that has been arrived at through the application of reason and skepticism.

But allow me to present you with a situation that I actually face right now (and that is somewhat the cornerstone of a talk I'm hoping to give at TAM 6, if it is accepted).

[...snip interesting story about the Mosuo...]

That's a good point you make, and it holds well from the perspective of the individual. However, if one evaluates different propositions in relation to eachother, the reasoning process that leads to atheism is more advanced (it has a higher proability of producing the correct answer) and thus it is still the more reasonable position.

I will concede, however, that I was wrong when I said that belief in god requires suspension of skepticism. In most cases, and in a well educated society, I maintain that would certainly be the case but there are exceptions and my generalisation was incorrect. All generalisations are incorrect.

[Wolfman]

All generalisations are incorrect.Is that not a generalization? ;):D

[megaresp]

My simple observation of the evening news is that a large number of people in the world would be better off without religion...

At least if it was not there to hide behind, it would be easier to see those who hide behind its curtain for purposes of controlling power or gaining wealth at their expense.

It's easier to spot a person who hides behind the curtain of religion telling folk it's fine to murder Arab civilians in the name of god (900 years ago), than it is a person who tells people it's fine to murder Arab civilians in the name of democracy (our lifetime)?

And this may sound rather extremist, but religion prospers by using some kinds of people to serve its own ends.

I can say exactly the same thing about the US government, so I will...

And this may sound rather extremist, but the US government prospers by using some kinds of people to serve its own ends.

But what should the role of atheists be?

Atheists should have a role? Perhaps that's how all this trouble gets started in the first place?

...Not here to destroy or condemn, but to educate. To try and help others gain a wider perspective.

Good luck with that.

I'm sure you start with the purest of motives. The same can be said, I'm certain, about the well-intentioned educators in California right now. I'm certain they don't want to destroy or condemn either, but to educate.

Despite their good intentions, they are fascists. And they will not win the battle they've just taken on.

The Brits tried it with the Irish, and failed miserably to educate them out of their Catholic ignorance. It has been tried over and over and over again throughout history.

It has never worked. When it is tried, the fortunate ones who are lucky enough to be targeted for re-education simply take their beliefs underground.

Typically, the well-intentioned are forced to give way to the not-so-well-intentioned as it becomes clear that efforts to stamp out whatever are failing. The enlightened are forced into increasingly heavy-handed tactics, and end up being seen for what they truly are: Arrogant bullies, and (if they're really committed to their agenda), ultimately torturers and murderers.

...an atheist can encourage wider and more free directions of thought.

Anybody can encourage 'wider and more free directions of thought'. It doesn't require the presence of an atheist.

[The Atheist]

Rip my arguments apart if you can but leave me out of it.

Doesn't appear as though you're attracting too much stick at this stage.

Wolfman - I think you're saving a few of us having to say much here - cheers.

[dglas]

Wrong.

Some humanists [ I assume you meant theists here] have excluded Humanism from their dogma. But try googling "Christian Humanism", "Jewish Humanism", "Muslim Humanism", "Religious Humanism", etc., and you will find that there are actually quite a few theists who embrace the moral aspects of Humanism.

Nice little wall of text, including a barrage of material intended to silence. Where have we seen that kind of tactic before. Next you'll be using grotesquely oversized text to shout over others. You'd never do that, would you?

After having perused a few of the links, each of these typically defines their "humanism" as existing within the contexts of their respective theisms, thereby defining what it is to be human in terms of their theisms. In short, these are not previously held understandings of the word "humanism" and instead refer to a contrivance based on redefining humanism such that it accepts subordination to theism. Being human through God, rather than just being human.

That's not any kind of change in perspective. It is a PR campaign, seeking to take the moral force of humanism and lay claim to it in the name of theism. One can view these as disingenuous attempts to annex resource-rich territory.

There are exceptions, but these are few and far between, and they seem confused and disoriented, unable to determine where they stand, as if attempting to reconcile conflicting standpoints - because, really, they are. In this case the "quite a few" becomes very nearly a logical some, meaning at least one.

At the heart of any discussion of humanism or theism comes the axiomatic presupposition of the hierarchy of importance between God and humanity. Humanism places humans as the "center of the universe" and theism places god as the "center of the universe," colloquially speaking (these are not my terms). In any given case we must ask a theist if they are prepared to surrender their god for the benefit of a humanity when push comes to shove.

You cite example of so-called humanism from the standpoints of each of the three major mono-theistic traditions (which really is one tradition, branched off). So, in each of these cases we are well within our rights to ask the same pertinent question of anyone from these traditions claiming to be humanists. "You are Abraham. You have been commanded by God to sacrifice your children. Will you do it?" And this is not a spurious or irrelevant question because it is a fundamental moral point for persons of all three of these traditions. It is also a pivotal moral point for humanists.

I already mentioned that the two (theism and humanism) were perceived to be contradictory by the vast majority of theologians in the history of theology. It wouldn't do, after all, to have us putting humans above god, for He is a jealous god. This perceived contradiction is born out in the writings on the subject of academics throughout recorded history. It is interesting to note that in most of the articles I encountered, following your links, the word Renaissance predominates. It seems that the vast consensus understand that "humanism" in religion is a relatively recent phenomenon previously held in contempt, derision, and forcibly subjugated by traditional theology. Not just a few fundamentalists, but the entire tradition of all three mono-theistic traditions.

Your "quite a few theists" may sound impresive, but in terms of percentages of overall population, secularism has a much stronger humanistic tradition than theism does. There is a reason for this. Now our difficulty, is to determine that reason. According to the experts on theology, it has something to do with the priority of god, morally and otherwise, and the subordinance (heh , insubordinance perhaps) of humans, morally and otherwise. In any event, your theistic "humanists" are a drop in the bucket compared to the sweeping scale of theistic history. Moreover, it may not even be appropriate for you to make the claim that theism has been tempered with humanistic sentiments even in the world of today. But, since you have made that claim, I am sure you would be willing to provide evidence to back that up...

I'm sorry, Wolfman, but a few (even "quite a few") apologists desperately trying to reconcile a contradictory priorities list does not constitute a radical shifting in thinking of theology on the whole.

If you think there is no contradiction in thinking between theism and humanism in history, then I can only ask you who's history you are referring to, because it isn't humanity's...

It's not me that's wrong about that, it is you. It is only possible to be a theist and a humanist if one radically alters the definition of one or the other on this contradictory perspective.

And here's why you are wrong: In natural language, the way almost everyone uses it, theism has content beyond just believing in God. Part of this is because the concept of God is perceived as having content beyond mere Godness, by definition. Therefore, to hold as controversial the existence of God is equivalent in the minds of theists to holding that whole realm of additional content as controversial. therefore atheism, in the mind of the theist, is not just a mere lack of belief in the existence of God.

Now, I'm not sympathetic with this view, but to fail to realize that theists do view things this way is so profound, and contrary to the evidence, an error that it is mind-boggling.

Why do you think one of the foremost (albeit spurious) issues in the mind of the theists (and as a pivotal point of persuasion among theistic debaters) the question of from whence an atheist's morality arises. we have an answer for that, but they don't hear it. Why? Because for them, morality is inextricably entwined with theism.

How does atheism fall on the scale of trusted ways of thinking and being in the scale of popular opinion? The vast majority do NOT see atheists as trustworthy or moral. What is the reason for this, if all atheist means is "no God" and that has no additional content?

Ask yourself (if you can pause from shouting) what the meaning of a strictly normatively neutral God would be. What comfort can one take in a abstracted concept-being that has no emotional content? Try to be honest. Again, it's a matter of perception, whether we like it or not.

Once we understand that there is additional content, we can start asking questions about what kind of additional content it is.


I didn't answer the question because I don't believe that it can be shown. However, if it could be shown (to my satisfaction) that theism and humanism are mutually exclusive, I'd of course still be a Humanist.

As mentioned before, the vast majority of theists have quite vigorously maintained that there is, throughout history.


You might as well ask me, "If it could be shown that you are a woman, and not a man, what would you do?" Of course, there are tons of possible answers; but since I do not believe that you will ever prove such a thing, answering the question is rather pointless.

The question was asking you to make a choice between God and humanity. Presumably, you have made that choice. Note that your answer was, "I don't believe you can prove this" rather than "it doesn't make sense to ask this question." There is a very real reasons for this. You understand quite well that it is an easily parsed, understandable question (too late to backtrack now!). You recognize the legitimacy of the question, and you understand full well that others do, too.

Do you understand now why I asked you that question. Or did you really understand it all along and just didn't want to face it square-on?

Theism is not just error in terms of stipulative disingenuousness (not subject to verification/refutation), it has real particular emotive, normative content in the mind of the theist which shapes and defines (they like to say "informs") the self-concept of the individual. There are presuppositions at work, whether you wish to recognize them or not.
Typically theists assert an Idealist normative vision that we should be something other than what we are. Presuppositions of intrinsic evil (Have I ever used that phrase before?) inherent in any normative framework that not only posits, but encourages (in terms of assuming we want to be so), evil. Subservience to authority and the elevating of Truth above humanity. Spiritualism (and anti-verificationism as somehow "Good" in a normative sense) as a way of understanding the world. Emotional content defined not in terms of other people but in terms of normative absolutes. The very idea of normative absolutes, and on and on and on...

So, while it is possible for atheists to assume these anti-humanist standpoints, the theist perceives it as necessary that theists do (although they inexplicably paint them a positive standpoints). That's by choice of the theist.

Strictly speaking, it is possible for a theist to posit a god with no normative qualities at all (try to actually imagine that if you will). Rarely, if ever, has this ever been done. Like the deist claiming to find comfort in an, uncaring, neglectful, fire & forget god, it is simply nonsensical. But even then there are presupposition about the nature of reality that again influence our concepts of self (our place within that reality and our relationship to it) and our efficacy within it. An atheist need not necessarily be a materialist either, strictly speaking.
If you recognize that, then it would serve you well to recognize that the lack of that particular content shapes and defines the self-concept of the individual as well. Again, presuppositions at work. And here's the kicker...if God is posited as an explanatory device (additional content), then our relationship with the universe changes again. In one view we are blown along helplessly on the whims on vague metaphysical winds, the other we can (at least can!) develop some human efficacy.

Is it possible that there are still people out there who think that ideas do not influence behaviour? That concepts of self do not influence how one acts, how one thinks, how on is?


I, personally, see the labeling of atheists as "militant," "dogmatic", "evangelical" or even (snirk!) "fundamentalist" as an attempt to shut atheists up, while allowing the theists to steamroll on full-tilt. Gee-whiz-willikers! Who wins in that contest?

And if atheists (and humanists) dare to dispute the existence of God and all the anti-humane intellectual and emotional trash that rides on its coat-tails), they are then assigned these labels. Contrary to your misconception, atheism is perceived as having content, just as much as theism is perceived to. And this perception is near-universal. Content perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be intrinsic to the very idea of it, because the very idea of a god alters the concept of self significantly than defaulting otherwise. In the same vein, the very idea of non-god alters the concept of self significantly than defaulting otherwise.

I do not see any particular reasons to assume, as the default, that I not point out these things, that I not bring these matters to the negotiating table, while the theists get the win by virtue of a "no show." And, you know, it's not like I'm killing anyone to enforce my view...

Warning: 24 decibel minimum sound suppression recommended for the following portion of our program...


My god, I don't know how people can have so much difficulty with such an incredibly simple concept.

"DON'T BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD" = ATHEIST

It has nothing to do with the reasons why you don't believe in god. It has nothing to do with what other beliefs you have. It has nothing to do with if you do good things, or you do bad things.

Settle down.

Again. Does theism have any normative or emotional content? If it does, then so does atheism. Now showing something you don't want to accept to your satisfaction (thank you, judge of all the earth), may not be possible, but that may not be because the evidence is not convincing to a reasonable adjudicator, but rather because the adjudicator may not be reasonable.

You may wish "'DON'T BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD' = ATHEIST" to be true, and we might both wish that, it does not stop the vast majority (almost everyone actually) of people from ascribing, and indeed prescribing, content beyond your subtly stated parameters. Theists presuppose content in theism, whether that fits in with your (or my) desired vision of things or not. You can try to pretend that there is none, but that will be class case of you against the world.

I understand why you want to think the way you do. In an ideal world - a world without confused definitions and connotations - I might be tempted to think this way, too. But, as the saying goes, this is not an ideal world, and atheists are reviled, vilified and slandered, and were (and still are in some places) hunted tortured and murdered because there is more perceived content in the God concept than as a perfectly neutral concept-being.

So while it may be inconceivable to you that people have trouble with "such an incredibly simple concept," it is nevertheless true that the vast majority of people throughout history have, and that the vast majority of people today do.

Of course, we're never going to get across the possible idea of redefining theism and atheism as having non-normative content if we won't even take a seat at the negotiating table.


Ain't walls of text grand..?

[billydkid]

Your argument is as ridiculous as Christians who, when faced with atrocities like the Crusades, say, "Oh, but they weren't real Christians". Yes they were. They read the same Bible, they followed the same god, etc.

You don't get to pick-and-choose just because you happen to dislike or disagree with them. There is nothing whatsoever that says "If you chose to become an atheist for the wrong reason, you're not an atheist". An atheist is any person who does not believe in god. Period. End of argument. Conclusion. Finished. Over. Done with.Your crusades argument is ridiculous. The crusades and the atrocities committed by the church were committed IN THE NAME of their religion. Their motivation was religious. Communist oppression is not committed in the name of atheism.

[latent aaaack]

For most of history I agree that religion was a critical, inevitable part of civilization that could not have been replaced by humanistic atheism except in a priviledged few. With the advent of universal literacy, public education, easy accessibility of books and information, leisure time, science, and disposable income to name a few religion no longer is helpful except culturally. It's no surprise that the Human Development Index for countries and their rate of atheism are so strongly linked. The rest of your post was filled with bizarre claims about atheists and atheism.

[latent aaaack]

Like this:

Atheists want to believe that atheism is better than religion yet studying history it doesn’t appear to be. Atheism is still uncommon in the world and religion has survived any attempts by atheists to eliminate it. Why is this? It’s because atheism doesn’t provide what is necessary for a society to survive (a social/moral structure).

Actually you'll notice that the historical trend has been that as countries' Human Development Index increased as the population got out of the hunting gangs and ploughs, stopped being so disease ridden, dirty, and miserable and started being able to read and learn, and develop their higher level abilities rates of atheism sky rocketed. America is following European trends of plummeting belief in dieties for this reason. Historically it has been physically impossible for most people to even be able to read a Bible by themselves much less stop frantically trying to feed themselves and come up with a humanistic atheistic scientific view of the world all by themselves.

[Moochie]

Regarding post #63, does it break any record for length? Just wondering.

On the matter of "atheist" regimes, weren't they only nominally atheist? I mean, wasn't religion just driven underground? There seems to be quite a resurgence of religion in the former USSR.

M.

[Mobyseven]

Is that not a generalization? ;):D

ONOES! U CORT MI!!!

:p

To all the people saying that the USSR and China were not atheistic regimes - while nothing they did was done in the name of atheism both regimes did promote atheism. That they essentially replaced theistic religion with 'state as a religion' hardline nationalism gives us context for that, but that is irrelevant to the fact that they promoted atheism.

If someone were to say they committed atrocities in the name of atheism, they would be wrong. If someone were to say they were actively atheistic they would be stating a fact.

[JoeEllison]

If you don't believe in god for bad reasons, then you're not an atheist? What kind of argument is that?

"Don't believe in god" = atheist. It's just about the most simple equation possible. There are no codicils or waivers. "Oh, sorry, if we determine that the reasons you don't believe in any god are objectionable, we won't let you call yourself an atheist"?

Dude, I live in China. I know the people you're talking about. They are atheists. They have been born and raised in an education system that told them there was no god. They do not believe in god. They do not believe in a supernatural realm. They are atheist.

Now, if they choose to place certain human leaders in a position of unquestioned or overwhelming power, that is their choice (albeit one I do not agree with). But they do not believe those leaders are gods, or have supernatural powers. They believe they are normal humans, just like you and me.

Your argument is as ridiculous as Christians who, when faced with atrocities like the Crusades, say, "Oh, but they weren't real Christians". Yes they were. They read the same Bible, they followed the same god, etc.

You don't get to pick-and-choose just because you happen to dislike or disagree with them. There is nothing whatsoever that says "If you chose to become an atheist for the wrong reason, you're not an atheist". An atheist is any person who does not believe in god. Period. End of argument. Conclusion. Finished. Over. Done with.

Your argument is garbage. You can say "Atheist regime" all you want, but the term is useless for describing the motivation of those regimes. The Soviet Union spoke Russian, so I guess we can call it a "Russian-language regime." How about a "Vodka-drinking regime" does that one work for you too?

Since atheism doesn't actually describe a set of social or moral rules, atheism cannot itself to be blame for a society's problems. You can't have it both ways: you can't fault atheism for not setting rules to live by, as the OP did, and then also claim that it somehow was responsible for the crimes of the Soviet Union.

[JoeEllison]

ONOES! U CORT MI!!!

:p

To all the people saying that the USSR and China were not atheistic regimes - while nothing they did was done in the name of atheism both regimes did promote atheism. That they essentially replaced theistic religion with 'state as a religion' hardline nationalism gives us context for that, but that is irrelevant to the fact that they promoted atheism.

If someone were to say they committed atrocities in the name of atheism, they would be wrong. If someone were to say they were actively atheistic they would be stating a fact.

The problem is that people try to conflate religion with atheism, even though people have absolutely committed atrocities in the name of religion, while the same is not true of atheism.

[Bikewer]

I don't believe that the world has ever seen a country or "regime" that was atheist in that everyone sat down together and said, "Religion? Who needs that?"

In the case of the various attempts at Communism, (none of which achieved Communism either) an atheistic viewpoint was imposed upon essentially-religious people. Especially in the case the Soviets, deeply religious.
There was a great deal of pro-forma "Oh, sure; atheism all the way, comrade!", but look how quickly the Russians flocked back to the churches after the collapse.

As other posters above have said, these totalitarian dictatorships merely attempted to replace worship of God with worship of The State.

[A Christian Sceptic]

After having perused a few of the links, each of these typically defines their "humanism" as existing within the contexts of their respective theisms, thereby defining what it is to be human in terms of their theisms. In short, these are not previously held understandings of the word "humanism" and instead refer to a contrivance based on redefining humanism such that it accepts subordination to theism. Being human through God, rather than just being human.

That's not any kind of change in perspective. It is a PR campaign, seeking to take the moral force of humanism and lay claim to it in the name of theism. One can view these as disingenuous attempts to annex resource-rich territory.


Here's a very broad overview.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_humanism

[plumjam]

Your crusades argument is ridiculous. The crusades and the atrocities committed by the church were committed IN THE NAME of their religion. Their motivation was religious. Communist oppression is not committed in the name of atheism.

What is it committed in the name of, then?
In the name of communism, I guess... let's see.. communism being a wholly materialist and therefore of necessity atheistic political ideology.

I did some googling:

"non-atheist communists" = 1 result
"non-atheistic communists" = 0 results
"non-atheist communism" = 1 result
"non-atheistic communism" = 2 results
"theist communists" = 7 results
"theist communism" = 5 results
"communists who weren't atheists" = 1 result
"non-materialist communism"= 1 result
"non-materialistic communism" = 0 results

versus:

"atheist communists" = 5,570 results
"atheistic communists" = 3,690 results
"atheist communism" = 2,870 results
"atheistic communism" = 22,100 results
"materialist communism" = 162 results
"materialistic communism" = 918 results

and then just for a laugh, folks:

"religious atrocities" = 2,500 results
"communist atrocities" = 7,200 results

"theist atrocities" = 43 results
"atheist atrocities" = 1,570 results

"communist tolerance of religion" = 0 results
"communist persecution of religion" = 796 results

"christians persecuted communists" = 0 results
"communists persecuted christians" = 80 results

"Jesus loves you" = 885,000
"Stalin loves you" = 301
"Mao loves you" = 50
"Pol Pot loves you" = 0 :D

"What would Jesus do?" = 413,000
"What would Stalin do?" = 478
"What would Mao do?" = 103
"What would Pol Pot do?" = 7

"Christian compassion" = 33,300
"Communist compassion" = 152



As Wolfman says, you can't have it both ways.

[epeos76]

@ Wolfman.

Thanks for your excellent posts.


@ China

Atheism is widespread in China precisely because it was an intrinsic part of the marxist package the CCP initially adopted. The doctrinaire assertion that religion is a parasite erased one more obstacle to the unchecked moral authority of the communist party.

More specifically, the chinese government's treatment of buddhist clergy in Tibet is expressly done in the name of liberating Tibet from the "slavery" of traditional religious rule. I don't claim this is an indictment of atheism. I simply think it supports Wolfman's point about the source of this type of behavior: it's deeper than the particular moral claims used to justify it.

[Darat]

Would a better way of describing China not be "religious but non-theistic" rather than atheistic? Whilst of course atheism would describe one aspect of "religious non-theism" I would say given how the word is used in the opening post that would be missing the point as it is also being used to mean "non religious".

[Dogdoctor]

Dogdoctor,

I'm a complete atheist, but would agree with your comments in general. I'm not an atheist because it is "better", or will make the world "better"; I am an atheist because I've become convinced, personally, that it is the truth. In some ways, religious beliefs could be very comforting...for example, the idea that when I die, I get to spend eternity in paradise surrounded by the people I love most. That is, to me, a significantly more pleasant and desirable outcome than simply ceasing to exist.

However, I could equally argue that my father not dying slowly of Parkinson's Disease while we all watch him deteriorate is a significantly less desirable outcome than an outcome where he never has Parkinson's, and lives a happy, healthy life. But how nice or desirable the particular outcome may be has no impact whatsoever on the reality of what is actually true, and what is not. I'm not an atheist because I think its "better"; I'm an atheist because I think its true.

Now, I've started or participated in several threads within these forums where some atheists attack theists quite vociferously, blaming all of the world's evils on them, and trying to claim that atheism somehow is superior in this regard. That is, in my opinion, a load of bollocks. As I've argued in other posts, if we were to remove theism entirely from the world tomorrow, and have a 100% atheist population, I'd bet that we'd still have exactly the same abuses, exactly the same problems. We'd just find other excuses/rationalizations for it (politics, race, nationalism, etc.). Nor would the world be any less woo-ish, or any more rational -- just check out all the athiest woos today who still blindly believe in incredibly stupid claims.

There are atheists who are 9-11 conspiracists. There are atheists who believe firmly that some races are superior to others. There are atheists who are hard-core Communist, and atheists who are hard-core Nazis. There are atheists who set up atheist religions (like the Raelians), simply replacing non-existent gods with non-existent aliens. There are atheists who swear that homeopathy works, and that psychic powers exist. There are atheists who seek wealth and power regardless of how many people they have to hurt/kill to get it.

I argue for atheism because I believe it is true; not because I believe it is better.

Now, if we were to change the topic to discuss Humanism, then my argument would change. I do believe that the world would be a better place if everyone were magically changed into Humanists. Humanism doesn't just advocate atheism; it teaches that rational thought, science, skepticism, etc., are all important tools, and that whatever we believe, it should be based on a rational, scientific examination of the 'proofs' presented to us. Beyond that, it advocates for democracy, human rights, human equality, human dignity, etc. If people lived their lives according to the teachings of Humanism, I believe the world would be a better place. Heck, even theists can be Humanists...rather than seeking to divide into "us vs. them", and make "them" think like "us", Humanism promotes simply getting theists to examine and think about their beliefs more rationally; with the belief that, if they do so, they'll eventually become atheists. Not because atheism is better, not because we convinced them it was wrong...but because the preponderance of facts and information will eventually convince them that is so.

But we'll never have a world that is predominantly Humanist (I don't think so, anyway). Because there will always be people who seek power, there will always be people who believe they are superior, there will always be people willing to accept extraordinary or illogical claims without examining them critically, etc.

We're stuck with the world we've got. And what I think is sad is that so many atheists, while claiming to be more rational, and claiming to be in a 'superior' position, nevertheless blindly repeat the mistakes that have been made by every group in history (theist or atheist) that has believed they are superior -- they seek to divide everything into "us" vs. "them", and to demonize "them" as inferior, as more dangerous, etc.

And by doing so, the only thing they really accomplish is to guarantee that the same problems are repeated over and over and over again.
I think if we were able to remove all the theists in the world their would be chaos because atheists don't agree on moral issues or other simple things needed for a functioning society. For instance I would say it is slightly immoral to fight with religious people in most instances because it is self serving and creates ill will and needlessly causes discomfort to others. I am sure others disagree with me on this.

[Dogdoctor]

Are there not countries where the majority of the population are atheist? How come these countries don't need religion?

There are countries like you say but where to their morals and social structure come from? It is likely remnants of religion. Originally religion created the ideas and they have been borrowed and altered over time. How do these countries pass on morality? I am not sure but it seems that if all morality is debatable then eventually it will disintegrate to a point where it doesn't function enough to maintain a healthy society. If they can preserve a core of unbreakable morals then maybe an atheist society can persist over time but it will take something other than atheism to do so.

[Dogdoctor]

It seems that religion is far superior to atheism for society in providing what people need to live.

My simple observation of the evening news is that a large number of people in the world would be better off without religion. (I am). At least if it was not there to hide behind, it would be easier to see those who hide behind its curtain for purposes of controlling power or gaining wealth at their expense. And this may sound rather extremist, but religion prospers by using some kinds of people to serve its own ends. Who stands for the right of those people to simply live, instead of being someone's demon or saint to fertilize faith?

But what should the role of atheists be? You are right, there is not much to unify except a defining perspective or realization. But suppose for a moment that religion is only one manifestation of a deeper human quality that is a source of many (mostly beneficial) things - art, music, etc: In this view, religion does not inspire creative effort toward art or beauty, but channels it.

So a role for an atheist might be more like what the Buddhists would call a 'Bodhisattva': Not here to destroy or condemn, but to educate. To try and help others gain a wider perspective. Instead of religion being like a river that flows in a rigid and cement channel made by mostly old men, an atheist can encourage wider and more free directions of thought.

Because atheism is lack of belief it is not unifying. They need to have a unifying belief system to deal with stuff that isn't entirely logical such as morals. I don't know what it might be but some kind of humanism. Without it you have just a bunch of angry atheists splitting into smaller and smaller groups due to disagreements in what is important.

[thaiboxerken]

There are countries like you say but where to their morals and social structure come from?

Government, laws, society and tradition.

It is likely remnants of religion.

Some, yes.

Originally religion created the ideas and they have been borrowed and altered over time.

For some moral structures, yes, but others, no.

How do these countries pass on morality?

How do countries educate people in science?

I am not sure but it seems that if all morality is debatable then eventually it will disintegrate to a point where it doesn't function enough to maintain a healthy society.

Really? I think it's the opposite. It's because of debate and free-thought that we have such secular concepts as freedom of speech, thought, religion and expression. Such concepts did not come from the bible or any religion I can think of.

If they can preserve a core of unbreakable morals then maybe an atheist society can persist over time but it will take something other than atheism to do so.

I'd rather not live in a place where morals cannot be debated or discussed.

[Dogdoctor]

8,394 posts (as of the OP) and you are still going on and on, Dd, claiming everyone else thinks this or that, mostly along the same old theme, you claiming to be agnostic and you claiming atheists believe, "that religion should be suppressed".

Yaaaawwwnnnn.... You are told over and over, your attack is against a straw man. Atheists may or may not care to educate and encourage critical thinking, but I've read very few, if any atheist positions here on JREF that theism should be suppressed. Yet on and on you go imagining that is what you read. You again and again claim that is what is said here on JREF despite the fact you would be hard pressed to cite a single atheist here claiming what you claim, that theists should be suppressed.

What are we to conclude from this imaginary persecution you claim is not your personal battle? What are we to conclude about your supposedly valiant fight in the name of the importance of believing in gods that you don't personally believe in?

I conclude that you are a theist in disguise. You are a liar for Jesus despite the fact that bearing false witness is a violation of one of the sacred 10 commandments. You make these claims in some misguided quest despite the fact that Biblical stories include many a hero who stood fast in their beliefs refusing to denounce Jesus or God. You are here persistent in your 8,394 posts in the bizarre belief of something like that you will shame the skeptic community into professing guilt at having challenged the god believers to critically examine their god beliefs.

I don't think so, Dd. No guilt is forthcoming as far as I can see. God beliefs are irrational. Some skeptics challenge them, some give god beliefs a pass. But few if any JREF skeptics have any stake in suppressing any beliefs, be they beliefs in homeopathy or beliefs in magical beings in the sky. Skeptics promote education. They promote critical thinking. Maybe a few of them are political position pushers. But few skeptics, if any, are likely to agree with the position that any beliefs should be suppressed. On that count your imagination has gotten the better of you and your lies for Jesus are showing through your facade.

You are 100% wrong

[dglas]

Regarding post #63, does it break any record for length? Just wondering.

M.


I don't know if it breaks any records, but I'm still tuckered.

What doesn't kill me me leaves me maimed and broken... ;)


Not the way to...
Win Powerball!!!

[billydkid]

[quote=Dogdoctor;3534945]I think if we were able to remove all the theists in the world their would be chaos because atheists don't agree on moral issues or other simple things needed for a functioning society. quote]And theists do???? They all agree on moral issues? Like, for example, stoning girls to death for being raped??? Is that one of those common theist moral positions?

[Darat]

[And theists do???? They all agree on moral issues? Like, for example, stoning girls to death for being raped??? Is that one of those common theist moral positions?

This plays into what dglas posted about.

Whilst many of us would like atheist to mean nothing more than "no belief in a god" when we look at its opposite "theist" it becomes obvious that some words mean much more than their "literal" meaning. Ands sadly atheist is one these words, I posted recently that (I think) this is one of the reasons quite a few people are reluctant to wear the label "atheist" not because of its "literal" meaning but because of what the word actually means in general usage.

On the other hand I do think it worthwhile reminding people that the group covered by the word "theist" is apart from the one thing they all have in common, as a diverse groups as atheists are and that there is no "theist morality", all there is is a group of conflicting religious "theisms". The opening post seems to be ignoring this fact.

[Dogdoctor]

What I want to know is what kind of a moron is going to do a personal attack on me when I requested not to and gave instruction on how to avoid it? I mean what kind of self serviing idiot would do that? Being that they also called me a Christian they must be one of those narrow minded fundamentalist atheists.

[Darat]

What I want to know is what kind of a moron is going to do a personal attack on me when I requested not to and gave instruction on how to avoid it? I mean what kind of self serviing idiot would do that? Being that they also called me a Christian they must be one of those narrow minded fundamentalist atheists.


"tu quoque" comes to mind, and whilst that may sound educated its only relationship to an educated response is that it belongs in a school's playground.

Given your opening post I would have thought you would wish to set an example of how not to do the very thing you are seemingly railing about in others?

[Hokulele]

I think if we were able to remove all the theists in the world their would be chaos because atheists don't agree on moral issues or other simple things needed for a functioning society. For instance I would say it is slightly immoral to fight with religious people in most instances because it is self serving and creates ill will and needlessly causes discomfort to others. I am sure others disagree with me on this.


I will disagree with you on this point, and see this as a bit of a red herring. Right now, atheists do not have to agree on anything other than not believing in any god(s). However, if society as we know it disappeared tomorrow taking all of the theists with it, the remaining atheists would most likely find a way to develop a common system of morals and methods to develop a functioning society out of necessity. Atheists aren't necessarily stupid, and most would find a way to compromise any differences as the alternative would be pretty obviously unwanted. Atheism <> anarchy.

In addition, I note that you are still equating religion with theism. Please stop that.

[Dogdoctor]

"tu quoque" comes to mind, and whilst that may sound educated its only relationship to an educated response is that it belongs in a school's playground.

Given your opening post I would have thought you would wish to set an example of how not to do the very thing you are seemingly railing about in others?
I have no excuse except I was angry for the treatment I got. It seems that I am not infallible. Sorry if I let you down.

[Dogdoctor]

This thread is full of opinions (mine included) because there isn't meanigful data about these issues and we all have given more or less thought about the issues. Skepticism often fails in these situation since we have opinions without data to support it. The way you treat others is important even if there isn't conclusive data about the issue.

[dglas]

Here's a very broad overview.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_humanism

While there is far, far too much stuff to be read in a time reasonable for creating a reply, this was one of the obvious ones to read, and I did.

"The traditional teaching that humans are made in the image of God, or in Latin the Imago Dei, also supports individual worth and dignity."

Individual worth and dignity require Imago Dei, to "support" them? Hmmm.

"Mere Humanism might value earthly existence as something worthy in itself, whereas Christian humanism would value such existence, so long as it were combined with the Christian faith."

"..so long as it were combined with the Christian faith." So long? So, it doesn't unless the Christian faith content is added? Interesting. Mere Humanism?

[Spock eyebrow raise]...interesting...[/Spock eyebrow raise]

[dglas]

I think if we were able to remove all the theists in the world their would be chaos because atheists don't agree on moral issues or other simple things needed for a functioning society.

OMGoddzzorz11!! Anarchy is loosed upon us all! There is chaos in the streets! Chaos I tells ya! Conflict resolution doesn't rely on God-given absolutes anymore! The horror! The Funky Horror! Aaiiieeeeeee!!!!

You live in a world without secular legal or moral systems? I don't. This would make clear quite a bit about the differences in opinion we hold.


For instance I would say it is slightly immoral to fight with religious people in most instances because it is self serving and creates ill will and needlessly causes discomfort to others.

"Creates?"
>Tweeeet!!< Two minute retaliation penalty. Get in the box, atheist! No, it's not a double penalty. I refuse to see the theist's cross-check that instigated it. Additional 5 minute misconduct penalty for daring to talk about the call (theist doesn't want it discussed). That'll teach ya!

I am sure others disagree with me on this.

*Bows* Please allow me to verify that there are some (logical some) others who disagree on that.

[Egg]

Dogdoctor,

I'm a complete atheist, but...

I think this might be what Richard Dawkins refers to as "atheist buttery". :D

Fantastic post, Wolfman.

Nominated :)

[plumjam]

I think if we were able to remove all the theists in the world their would be chaos because atheists don't agree on moral issues or other simple things needed for a functioning society.

And theists do???? They all agree on moral issues? Like, for example, stoning girls to death for being raped??? Is that one of those common theist moral positions?

To billy, Mary Midgeley said philosophy is like good plumbing. You don't notice it until it has been taken away.
IMO religion is just the same. So look at the historical evidence of what happens when wide scale concerted efforts have been made to forcibly remove religion.
In the 20th Century that was tried, and it ended up with governments killing around 110 million of their own citizens (that's excluding external war, civil war, and common or garden criminal punishment, it also excludes Nazi Germany.)

Count 'em.
That's about 10 Holocuasts. One every decade. Approximately one 9/11 every day for one hundred years.

Go ahead and get rid of religion if you like. Just beware of what might happen.

[Wings]

Guys, let me test my logical fallacy radar a bit. Is what plumjam just said a strawman? I'm thinking he just built an argument he can easily refute, which doesn't accurately represent the actual state of affairs. For example, ignoring that communism had a big part to play in many of those atrocities that he attributes to removing religion on it's own.

I could be wrong, so I just want to put this out there to see.

[dglas]

Guys, let me test my logical fallacy radar a bit. Is what plumjam just said a strawman? I'm thinking he just built an argument he can easily refute, which doesn't accurately represent the actual state of affairs. For example, ignoring that communism had a big part to play in many of those atrocities that he attributes to removing religion on it's own.

I was going to critique it, but then I looked at it again, and the light dawned, and a choir of castrati started trilling, and annoying little cherubs with trumpets went around trying to entice acolytes with their nudity.

Plumjam is Plumjam's own critique.

Lordy, lordy, lordy! Lemme...
Win Powerball!!!

[Silentknight]

Regarding post #63, does it break any record for length? Just wondering.

On the matter of "atheist" regimes, weren't they only nominally atheist? I mean, wasn't religion just driven underground? There seems to be quite a resurgence of religion in the former USSR.

M.

Well, the chapters I posted for our "MST3K Presents: Loose Change" fanfiction were pretty long, although I think the record was when some idiot posted someone else's work in its entirety a few months ago either here or in the CT section (which was deleted by the mods).

Anyway, as strange as this sounds, I actually agree with Wolfman as well as the people who are stating objections to his posts, mostly because he wasn't exactly making the arguments that people are objecting to. Atheism refers to one thing and one thing alone: the disbelief in gods. Anything else is secondary, and it would be fallacious to equate or attribute one's political, ethical, economic, or cultural views to atheism. Atheism is a small subset of humanism, just as it is a small subset of Communism, Raelianism, and the other categories Wolfman listed, but, and I think this was his point, one should be careful not to fall into the fallacy of composition when using the term atheism.

To blame atheism for what communist regimes have done would be like blaming Hitler's mustache for the Holocaust. It's a completely idiotic argument. To say that removing religion would necessarily lead to communism and its related atrocities makes as much sense as the converse, saying that removing religion would necessarily lead to people discovering humanism. Communism came first, and atheism was instituted because these leaders did not want competing religions to take root.

To use a modern day example, North Korea under Kim Jong Il is a communist regime that is atheistic (although Christianity is allowed because of Kim Il Sung's religious background). All that means is they don't believe in gods. Atheism would be the only thing they have in common with humanists, and this is only a similarity in the empirical sense; for example, that Kim Jong Il and I both need oxygen to live. Any skeptics or rational dissenting atheists living in North Korea would have been chopped up and fed to their other political prisoners long ago.

In other words:

1. All communists are atheists.
2. Therefore all atheists are communists.

Is the fallacy of illicit conversion. You can't convert an A proposition.

[plumjam]

Guys, let me test my logical fallacy radar a bit. Is what plumjam just said a strawman? I'm thinking he just built an argument he can easily refute, which doesn't accurately represent the actual state of affairs. For example, ignoring that communism had a big part to play in many of those atrocities that he attributes to removing religion on it's own.

I could be wrong, so I just want to put this out there to see.

There has been a lot of talk on this thread about the usefulness of religion and whether it would be wise to remove it.
People here are always banging on about evidence. I just presented evidence of what has happened in the past when they've tried to get rid of religion. It turned out to be....let me check my facts.... yeah... the worst human disaster in history.
Perhaps the fact that it didn't happen in Western Europe or the Americas makes you feel kind of insulated from it.
110 million people.
One 9/11 every day for one hundred years.
(Yeah, I'll keep saying it)

So, you can try it again. Maybe something similar will happen. Maybe it won't. Your choice.

[Silentknight]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3391392#post3391392

*walks off and whistles*

[plumjam]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3391392#post3391392

*walks off and whistles*

Hmm.. why would you remember a specific post you made to me on another thread a month and a half ago, go looking for it, and repost it in another thread?
Ain't that a bit... well I'm sure Freud would have some theory.
I didn't remember it, but looked below and it was me replying, which I'll leave here, which I stick by 100%:

....
Is there a monthly or annual Strawman Award?
If so I unreservedly nominate the above post.
Such a fine and torturous example of the art of deliberate misinterpretation surely should not go unrewarded.

...
[This, I assure you, is pretty rare from me. If you'd like to know the extent of my dislike for people so predictably and mindlessly resorting to the accusation of "strawman" then just consult my avatar. I have done it probably only two or three times in over 2,000 posts.
So, in short, your post was a bit of a stinker.
Aside from that I'm a little flattered that you'd remember me so ;) ]

[plumjam]

Hey, SilentKnight,

prepared to risk one 9/11 every day for the next century because you disagree with women having to wear the hijab, or some fundamentalist christian preachers abuse the faith of their congregation by soliciting credit card donations, or some priests have affairs, or some religious people are homophobic?

It's up to you.
Care to make the decision?

[Foster Zygote]

I just presented evidence of what has happened in the past when they've tried to get rid of religion.
Actually you presented evidence of what happens when one religion tries to get rid of another religion.

You have never demonstrated that any of the societies you mentioned were based on atheism. In fact you have completely ignored all requests that you do so. Your argument has failed quite publicly because of this omission. The fact that you accuse others of avoiding meaningful discussion is laughably ironic.

[Foster Zygote]

Hmm.. why would you remember a specific post you made to me on another thread a month and a half ago, go looking for it, and repost it in another thread?
Ain't that a bit... well I'm sure Freud would have some theory.
I didn't remember it, but looked below and it was me replying, which I'll leave here, which I stick by 100%:

....
Is there a monthly or annual Strawman Award?
If so I unreservedly nominate the above post.
Such a fine and torturous example of the art of deliberate misinterpretation surely should not go unrewarded.

...
[This, I assure you, is pretty rare from me. If you'd like to know the extent of my dislike for people so predictably and mindlessly resorting to the accusation of "strawman" then just consult my avatar. I have done it probably only two or three times in over 2,000 posts.
So, in short, your post was a bit of a stinker.
Aside from that I'm a little flattered that you'd remember me so ;) ]

Another performance to distract attention from the meat of the matter.

Would you care to address the other points raised in that thread?

Plumjam has already started such a thread. It was demonstrated that the totalitarian systems he claimed to be a natural result of atheism were in fact based on the Soviet interpretation of Communism. The facts that the state itself was a virtual religion and that intellectual atheists were often imprisoned and executed because they were perceived as a threat to the state were both ignored by Plumjam
Plumjam, I can only conclude from observation that you are incapable of admitting error. Communism and atheism are not the same thing. Again, Communism and atheism are not the same thing. What happened in Russia, China, Cambodia etcetera was done in the name of Communism, which was a virtual religion unto itself. These states/religions declared official atheism (based on something that many people believe Karl Marx to have said that he actually did not) in order to suppress rival power systems.
Care to defend your argument with meaningful discussion? Care to point out a society that is based on atheism?

[Silentknight]

Hey, SilentKnight,

prepared to risk one 9/11 every day for the next century because you disagree with women having to wear the hijab, or some fundamentalist christian preachers abuse the faith of their congregation by soliciting credit card donations, or some priests have affairs, or some religious people are homophobic?

It's up to you.
Care to make the decision?

Care to prove how "removing religion", something I don't think anyone has advocated, is the same as atheism? Care to prove a causal relationship between atheism and the acts of communist regimes? You won't because you can't, and yet you still continue to recite that guilt-by-association argument as the gospel truth, if you'll excuse the pun.

Absence of religion is a consequence of a system that is already in place, for better or for worse. There are plenty of secular governments and nations in Europe that haven't done anything remotely resembling what you describe. You ignored what has been pointed out to you numerous times. Communism came first; atheism was a consequence of this. No person with half a brain could logically blame atheism (or lack of religion as you call it) for the atrocities of communist governments.

Do you really want to get into numbers as far as millions killed? How many people lived and died under the religiously motivated institution of slavery? How many Native Americans were killed, directly or indirectly, by the religiously motivated European settlers and conquistadors? By your logic, I could justifiably blame Christianity for directly causing these atrocities.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I understand and appreciate your argument; for the most part, I'd likely agree with you -- although I think I would not consider the terms "logical" and "reasonable" to be quite so interchangeable or synonymous as you do.

But allow me to present you with a situation that I actually face right now (and that is somewhat the cornerstone of a talk I'm hoping to give at TAM 6, if it is accepted).

As most people who know me here know, I have set up a non-profit organization to work with a minority group in south-western China, the Mosuo (click in the link in my sig if you want more info about this). They are in one of the most remote areas of the world, high in the Himalayas. Until very recently (ie. the past 5-10 years), many of them were pretty much shut off from the rest of the world. Many Mosuo villages still have no electricity; most have no running water. Religious beliefs are part-and-parcel of their daily lives.

Of course, they face disease, injuries, and all the other problems that afflict the rest of mankind. And they largely attribute such things to supernatural forces. Illness is caused by evil spirits. Accidents are caused by angering the local gods. Etc.

Here's the problem.

Decent hospitals and doctors for many Mosuo are days away...getting there involves travel by horse (or if you're rich, a motorcycle) over dangerous, twisting mountain paths, until you get to a main road, where you drive over more twisting mountain roads, hoping to avoid a landslide, or a collision with a vehicle coming the other way. Once you get there, the cost of medical care is so high that you usually can only afford the most basic treatment.

The result? Sending someone to a hospital is largely ineffective. If they are already very sick, or their situation very urgent, odds are they'll die before they ever get to the hospital. Even if the get there, they may not be able to afford adequate treatment for whatever the problem is -- and they'll bankrupt the entire family doing it.

By contrast, if they stay at home, and the local priest comes and does his various rites and prayers, more of them will survive (and without bankrupting the family). Sometimes they'll just get better on their own (and have it attributed to the priest's ministrations). Sometimes the treatments that the priest advises them to use (local herbs, or other such things) will actually work (even though most of them won't do a thing).

But what the people see is that if you call the local priest, the odds that the person will survive are higher than the odds of them surviving if they go to the hospital.

Now, try using science. Explain to them about germs, viruses, etc. They can't see these things, they have no means to do so. If you actually bring a microscope to show them, they'll still not believe that something that incredibly small could possibly cause so many problems.

Here is the part that I find most interesting. In visiting these villages, I find that it is those who are the most credulous -- the ones I would in general consider to be least skeptical, and most likely to believe anything that anyone tells them -- that are the most likely to accept what we tell them about disease, germs, etc. Whereas the ones who are more critical thinkers, who demand logical and consistent proof, are the ones most consistently resistant to what we're telling them.

Why? Because, given their experiences, everything they have seen, and their current ability to test what they believe, vs. what we believe, the most reasonable or logical conclusion for them to reach is that their beliefs are correct, and ours are wrong.

I appreciate that this is a 'special circumstance' argument, but it is made from a true situation, not just a hypothetical, and is used as a more extreme example to illustrate my point. How would you argue that, in this situation, given the specific situation and restrictions, their beliefs "require the temporary suspension of skepticism". Quite the opposite, I'd argue; in fact, I'd argue that the true skeptical thinker, the truly rational logician, if in their situation, would be most justified in taking the supernatural, theistic view, as opposed to the natural, atheistic view.

Now, of course, if we take them out of their specific environment/situation, or provide a way for them to have access to tools/resources they do not currently have, then the situation would change...and the logical/rational/skeptical individuals among them would, more than likely, end up embracing an atheist worldview. But I do not agree that theistic beliefs always "require the temporary suspension of skepticism".First, I love this example and hope you get to present it at TAM even though I won't be there.

But I don't think this example represents the same situation that the comment, theism requires suspension of skepticism, has been applied to. In other words in the context of the experiences of these people, they have not reached the point where the cumulative knowledge from centuries of careful observation and developing science can challenge their magical thinking.

However, you could hypothetically take these same people and present them with the religious intervention vs sham intervention (to rule out placebo). Proper skeptical inquiry in that case could result in the skeptics abandoning theism and still recognizing that the long trip and expense makes going out for medical care unworkable.

[articulett]

I suspect a society of atheists would be on par with a society of people who didn't believe in astrology. Atheism is just a lack of belief in a diety.... no more; no less. Of course many atheists have a scientific worldveiw-- or a naturalistic world view... and so they would base decision on facts and evidence rather than on what some human is telling them some god wants. Secular societies are healthier by many measurements than less secular ones. I think theres this delusional meme that atheism=communism or nazi-ism (even though the Nazi's were Christians.) But you can't group people by what they don't believe in. You group regimes the way you group religions--by the beliefs and ideals that unite them. This backward thinking where people imagine morality comes from religion is just wrong... humans evolved to be moral creatures.... to learn the ways of their society... to see themselves in other sentient beings... religion just tends to define who those beings are and which ones you don't have to care about because they are "the bad guys". Where are people made fabulous, moral, and tolerant by religion? Religion seems to get lots of credit just like god and faith for things it doesn't really do... and gurus get praises sung to them while those who bring real knowledge, truth, and civilizing influences are ignored and demonized for being "scientific", "skeptical" or (gasp) secular.

I think fears of "atheism" and atheists are inculcated by faith and the faithful-- this whole silly idea that atheism=evil=hell=eternal damnation and wonton sin. It isn't true. It's a lie. Atheism is as threatening as a-demonism or a-supernaturalism. It's a lack of belief. Nothing more. Quit spreading the bigoted lie that it's something to fear and that society will fall apart should people lose their faith.

Faith is not a means of objective truth. Atheism is nothing more than a lack of faith in gods. It makes sense to not believe in things for which there is no evidence--especially when those things have been used to manipulate people and keep them fearful while judging others who don't believe unbelievable things.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

More specifically, the chinese government's treatment of buddhist clergy in Tibet is expressly done in the name of liberating Tibet from the "slavery" of traditional religious rule. I don't claim this is an indictment of atheism. I simply think it supports Wolfman's point about the source of this type of behavior: it's deeper than the particular moral claims used to justify it.Just as most wars and oppression such as this claim to be in the name of [religion/atheism/communism/capitalism/other] doesn't mean that is the actual underlying issue. In this case it is (as far as I know anyway) an excuse to quash political opposition, nothing more nothing less. Whatever the political oppressor and in some cases the political revolutionary use as an excuse is rather opportunistic. They're just exploiting the situation using the theme at hand.

[thaiboxerken]

But the Tibetan priesthood did hold their people under a totalitarian rule.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think if we were able to remove all the theists in the world their would be chaos because atheists don't agree on moral issues or other simple things needed for a functioning society. For instance I would say it is slightly immoral to fight with religious people in most instances because it is self serving and creates ill will and needlessly causes discomfort to others. I am sure others disagree with me on this.You got the last sentence right anyway. :rolleyes:

What a bunch of nonsense. Are you seriously saying theists agree on moral issues? And the implication that morals come from religion? That garbage has been debunked a thousand times on the forum and elsewhere. Morals evolved because we are human and live in groups. Non-human primates have morals. You can find volumes of research supporting this. Do you recall that ape that picked up the unconscious child that fell into the enclosure at the zoo and carried the boy to the service gate? You think God told the animal to or something?

[Skeptic Ginger]

There are countries like you say but where to their morals and social structure come from? It is likely remnants of religion. Originally religion created the ideas and they have been borrowed and altered over time. How do these countries pass on morality? I am not sure but it seems that if all morality is debatable then eventually it will disintegrate to a point where it doesn't function enough to maintain a healthy society. If they can preserve a core of unbreakable morals then maybe an atheist society can persist over time but it will take something other than atheism to do so.I'm beginning to see where your misconceptions originate from. You have an incorrect underlying premise here.

Here's some reading to correct that incorrect underlying premise.

The evolution of morality; Richard Joyce (http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=6383)

The evolution of morality; Dr. C. George Boeree (http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/evolmoral.html)

Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html)

Moral Minds: The Evolution of Human Morality (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/stories/2006/1793870.htm)

The better angels of our nature: group stability and the evolution of moral tension. (http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/podos/Lahti_Biopage/lahti&weinsteinEHB05.pdf)

Science Now Podcast on the Evolution of Morality (http://blogs.sciencemag.org/newsblog/2008/02/podcast-on-the.html)

[Skeptic Ginger]

This thread is full of opinions (mine included) because there isn't meanigful data about these issues and we all have given more or less thought about the issues. Skepticism often fails in these situation since we have opinions without data to support it. The way you treat others is important even if there isn't conclusive data about the issue.If you don't know how to break a problem down into fundamental elements you could draw the erroneous conclusion as so many people do, that morals come from religious beliefs. It's as big a lie as "God is Love". It stems from the dogmatic adherence to the claim that we need religion.

How have you gone this long without hearing that this crap has been debunked? It's one of the cornerstone erroneous arguments that is used to try to debunk evolution. The survival of the fittest is wrongly portrayed as always being self serving therefore if God didn't make us we should all be sociopaths. It didn't dawn on these people that altruistic behavior might have a survival advantage. It also didn't dawn on them to take a look at our animal relatives.

[Skeptic Ginger]

There has been a lot of talk on this thread about the usefulness of religion and whether it would be wise to remove it.
People here are always banging on about evidence. I just presented evidence of what has happened in the past when they've tried to get rid of religion. It turned out to be....let me check my facts.... yeah... the worst human disaster in history.
Perhaps the fact that it didn't happen in Western Europe or the Americas makes you feel kind of insulated from it.
110 million people.
One 9/11 every day for one hundred years.
(Yeah, I'll keep saying it)

So, you can try it again. Maybe something similar will happen. Maybe it won't. Your choice.Plumjam. Allow me to introduce you to the scientific process.

Definitions (http://www.ncsu.edu/labwrite/res/res-glossary.html)scientific method: A process that is the basis for scientific inquiry. The scientific method follows a series of steps: (1) identify a problem you would like to solve, (2) formulate a hypothesis, (3) test the hypothesis, (4) collect and analyze the data, (5) make conclusions.

multiple variables: An experiment in which you have multiple variables may have more than one dependent variable and/or independent variable. This is common in experiments with multiple stages or sets of procedures. In these experiments, there may be more than one set of measurements with different variables.

dependent variable: A dependent variable (also known as the response variable), is what you measure in the experiment and what is affected during the experiment. The dependent variable responds to the independent variable. It is called dependent because it "depends" on the independent variable. In a scientific experiment, you cannot have a dependent variable without an independent variable.

independent variable: The value(s) you are manipulating is called the independent variable (also known as the “manipulated variable”). An independent variable is the variable you have control over, what you can choose and manipulate. It is what you predict will affect the dependent variable. In some cases, you may not be able to manipulate the independent variable. The independent variable may be something that is already there and is fixed, or something you would like to evaluate with respect to how it affects something else, the dependent variable: like color, kind and time.

reasoning: Reasoning is the logic used in going from initial understanding of the scientific concept to formulating a prediction of the outcomes of the experimental procedure. The hypothesis is a prediction of the outcome of the lab based on the initial understanding of the scientific concept of the lab. That understanding shapes the prediction of how the lab experiment will turn out and the anticipated relationship among variables.

results: This is the heart of the scientific paper, in which the researcher reports the outcomes of the experiment. Report is a key word here, because Results should not contain any explanations of the experimental findings or in any other way interpret or draw conclusions about the data. Results should stick to the facts as they have been observed. The Results section typically consists of both visual representations of data (tables and graphs and other figures) and written descriptions of the data.You have taken a single variable from thousands and summarily declared that is the variable which created the outcome.

Needless to say your reasoning is grossly flawed.

[The Atheist]

Do you recall that ape that picked up the unconscious child that fell into the enclosure at the zoo and carried the boy to the service gate? You think God told the animal to or something?

Not only do I recall that one, there's a highly interesting YouTube video showing the whole thing:

7djZzC6FKhw

Note that the gorilla does not pick the child up, it doesn't carry the child anywhere and it makes no moves to protect the child from other gorillas.

Want to try that argument again?

It didn't dawn on these people that altruistic behavior might have a survival advantage.

You do realise that religious people kick the arse of secular people when it comes to altruism? Kind of ruins your argument on that one, too.

[Dogdoctor]

If you don't know how to break a problem down into fundamental elements you could draw the erroneous conclusion as so many people do, that morals come from religious beliefs. It's as big a lie as "God is Love". It stems from the dogmatic adherence to the claim that we need religion.

How have you gone this long without hearing that this crap has been debunked? It's one of the cornerstone erroneous arguments that is used to try to debunk evolution. The survival of the fittest is wrongly portrayed as always being self serving therefore if God didn't make us we should all be sociopaths. It didn't dawn on these people that altruistic behavior might have a survival advantage. It also didn't dawn on them to take a look at our animal relatives.

Well I still try to maintain an open mind about things unlike fundamentalist atheists who are happy to stop where they are comfortable.

[Dogdoctor]

Not only do I recall that one, there's a highly interesting YouTube video showing the whole thing:

7djZzC6FKhw

Note that the gorilla does not pick the child up, it doesn't carry the child anywhere and it makes no moves to protect the child from other gorillas.

Want to try that argument again?



You do realise that religious people kick the arse of secular people when it comes to altruism? Kind of ruins your argument on that one, too.
In addition if a gorrila did help a child in an instance that doesn't mean much.
If you would like me to tell you stories about gorillas killing people who tried to help them I could do so. If you want to say we are no better than gorillas, speak for yourself.

[Wings]

Well I still try to maintain an open mind about things unlike fundamentalist atheists who are happy to stop where they are comfortable.

I don't know about these "fundamentalist atheists" you seem to mention, but I do know the value in having an open mind.

I also know the value in not having it so open that my brains fall out.

[Dogdoctor]

I'm beginning to see where your misconceptions originate from. You have an incorrect underlying premise here.

Here's some reading to correct that incorrect underlying premise.

The evolution of morality; Richard Joyce (http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=6383)

The evolution of morality; Dr. C. George Boeree (http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/evolmoral.html)

Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html)

Moral Minds: The Evolution of Human Morality (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/stories/2006/1793870.htm)

The better angels of our nature: group stability and the evolution of moral tension. (http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/podos/Lahti_Biopage/lahti&weinsteinEHB05.pdf)

Science Now Podcast on the Evolution of Morality (http://blogs.sciencemag.org/newsblog/2008/02/podcast-on-the.html)

Where ever your morality comes from I find it lacking.

[articulett]

And I find your mind as closed as you imagine the "fundamentalist atheists" to be... based on your own prejudices that you seem absolutely clueless about. If you are the only one thinking yourself as open minded... maybe you aren't as open-minded as you imagine yourself to be. Maybe your mind is just open to your particular bias.

[Dogdoctor]

And I find your mind as closed as you imagine the "fundamentalist atheists" to be... based on your own prejudices that you seem absolutely clueless about. If you are the only one thinking yourself as open minded... maybe you aren't as open-minded as you imagine yourself to be. Maybe your mind is just open to your particular bias.

I might have a bias but I know you have one.

[dglas]

Where ever your morality comes from I find it lacking.

Hmmm. Is that a personal attack against skeptigirl, or a suggestion that morality must have some particular source (or all of the above)?

[articulett]

And here's evidence that shows that secular societies are healthier... you know... real evidence... the kind that :open minded" people would be open to if they didn't have faith blocking the entry way... their belief that somehow faith is good and necessary for something or other fabulous. In fact, the less an area accepts evolution, the MORE dysfunctional they appear to be on all sorts of measures. And who is it that has the most trouble with evolution... why the religionists. Oh, I'm not saying religion causes social problems... but it does seem to go hand in hand with an imagined open mindedness coupled with profound ignorance that certainly doesn't help the problem.

This study... by a religious group... has to admit that belief in a creator ain't all it's cracked up to be--and certainly isn't associated with any measurable kind of morality.

[articulett]

I might have a bias but I know you have one.

Yeah, and Tom Cruise "knows" Scientologists are the experts of the mind...

And Mormons "know" Joseph Smith was a prophet of god....

And Navigator "knows" he had an out of body experience.


I'll file your "knowingness" along with theirs and you can rest assured I'll take your opinions about as seriously as you take mine.

[articulett]

But the Tibetan priesthood did hold their people under a totalitarian rule.

And they are sexist too...

"priesthoods" usually are...

[Dogdoctor]

Hmmm. Is that a personal attack against skeptigirl, or a suggestion that morality must have some particular source (or all of the above)?

Hmm lets see.....some one who has no problem making personal attacks on other posters....do you suppose they might not have well developed morals? How about making a post listing a bunch of sources of opinions on morals by a person who cares little about people who disagree with them? It's almost like an appeal to authority except that the poster obviously doesn't have well developped morals so why bother posting it even if it is some kind of dirty distracting trick fitting of their morality?

[dglas]

Hmm lets see.....some one who has no problem making personal attacks on other posters....do you suppose they might not have well developed morals? How about making a post listing a bunch of sources of opinions on morals by a person who cares little about people who disagree with them? It's almost like an appeal to authority except that the poster obviously doesn't have well developped morals so why bother posting it even if it is some kind of dirty distracting trick fitting of their morality?

Okay. Just checking.

Win Powerball!!!

[articulett]

This plays into what dglas posted about.

Whilst many of us would like atheist to mean nothing more than "no belief in a god" when we look at its opposite "theist" it becomes obvious that some words mean much more than their "literal" meaning. Ands sadly atheist is one these words, I posted recently that (I think) this is one of the reasons quite a few people are reluctant to wear the label "atheist" not because of its "literal" meaning but because of what the word actually means in general usage.

On the other hand I do think it worthwhile reminding people that the group covered by the word "theist" is apart from the one thing they all have in common, as a diverse groups as atheists are and that there is no "theist morality", all there is is a group of conflicting religious "theisms". The opening post seems to be ignoring this fact.

In fact, each brand of theist is quite sure that their brand of theism contains thee truth and that people that believe as they believe are the most righteous and moral. It doesn't matter to them that others might see their beliefs as divisive, oppressive, sexist, or less than beneficial for humanity-- they have "faith"-- an no amount of reason can shake faith. Each believer would like their brand of morality imposed on the masses... that is very problematic to me. I don't believe in their invisible man or his assorted plans for what comes next and I don't trust people who do. What wouldn't people do if they truly thought their eternity depended on it? I think "faith" makes people feel like they are good and moral and like they know something-- like they are being humble.... but it doesn't make it so... To me, it's all Scientology.... all astrology... all woo.... all primitive superstition that feels entitled to judge others and decide what's "true" or best for all-- all imaginary "divine truths"... The only way to get along with such egotistical delusions is for society to be secular and beliefs to be private. It's one thing to be able to tell people that their opinion sucks... but they tend not to take it very well when they think the invisible creator of the universe backs them up and that their opinion should be treated as a "divine truth".

Every believer seems to think that their morals are emulation worthy... I prefer to emulate folks like Randi or Sagan or Julia Sweeney... I don't find the believers the fabulous people they seem to imagine themselves. I mean there's wonderful people who are believers... but it isn't their belief that makes them wonderful.... just as Randi's lack of belief isn't what makes him a great person to me either-- it's the honesty and humility and humor. I don't see that so often in believers. The humility seems fake... because it's always sounded arrogant to imagine that you've somehow stumbled upon or been blessed with some divine "truth" because you managed to have "faith"... and that you know the supposed unknowable invisible creator of the universe enough to know what he wants and that he cares about you?!! I don't see anything particularly admirable in people who have this trait. I don't need people to tell me what I'm supposed to like and admire about them--thanks.

[Darat]

Hmm lets see.....some one who has no problem making personal attacks on other posters....do you suppose they might not have well developed morals? How about making a post listing a bunch of sources of opinions on morals by a person who cares little about people who disagree with them? It's almost like an appeal to authority except that the poster obviously doesn't have well developped morals so why bother posting it even if it is some kind of dirty distracting trick fitting of their morality?

What in earth are you trying to say? That Skepticgirl posted some links that deal with the origins of morality because she is an immoral person? :confused:

Did you read any of the links she provided? Conversely can you provide any support for your apparent contention that there is "a" theistic morality? Or even that all religious people who are also theists agree on what is moral or not?

If you can't or if you actually agree that not all theists agree on what is moral or not do you not see that the evidence shows your argument regarding a society that was not theistic is not an accurate description of reality?

[articulett]

SilentKnight... I don't think the North Koreans are atheists... Kim Jong Il's father was considered a god... and all their books attest to Kim Jong Il being born to a virgin under two stars and a rainbow... I think that nearly qualifies him as a savior... So, technically, I believe they are theistic... I know, I know... communists are supposed to be atheists and such according to the strawman that likes to lump evil with liberalism, communism, feminism, atheism, and all other isms that threaten theism and will surely lead to us all going to hell in a hand basket-- it's nice to paint the "bad guys" with one big broad black brush so you can be a bigot and just claim that you aren't-- that you just don't like "bad guys"-- "those evil others" --you know... those commie pinko god haters and such.

[articulett]

I find you (Dogdoctor) fare more guilty of what you accuse skepticgirl of than she is... oh, and what you accuse me of too. I don't find your brand of morality particularly inspiring or worth emulating. You post personal attacks on other posters all the time... you just slide them in and then back track like you didn't say anything awful... like you just did with skepticgirl. I've never seen you compliment another poster. You are readily offended--always apologizing for religion and are far less likely than skeptic girl to show no concern about the opinions of others. I am wondering if anyone else find Dogdoctor as "open minded" and moral and "unbiased" as he sees himself? It appears that few share his assessment of skepticgirl. I want to weigh in as one who does not.

How many people need to point out the flaws and obnoxiousness in your arguments before you understand that the problems you readily find in others are far more apparent in yourself?

It takes a big person to admit that maybe he was a bit offensive and apologize. That's where you could really show this morality. Why is it that the people defending religion and bashing atheists tend to be the very last to apologize. I thought faith was supposed to teach people those kinds of things. But on this forum, I see it much more from the non-believers-- by far. Never from the apologists and self appointed vigilantes and imagined "open minded" people. They seem to think they are worthy of emulating, and yet no one has given them a reason to think so.

[Hokulele]

SilentKnight... I don't think the North Koreans are atheists... Kim Jong Il's father was considered a god... and all their books attest to Kim Jong Il being born to a virgin under two stars and a rainbow... I think that nearly qualifies him as a savior...


As much as I hate to disagree with you articulett, I am not sure where you heard this from, but it isn't true. I admit I have not spent any time in North Korea, but I have spent time in South Korea (and if anyone is intolerant of the North Korean regime it is the South Koreans!), and have never heard of this. I will not vouch for the authenticity of this biography, but the group hosting it sounds legitimate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Friendship_Association).

http://www.korea-dpr.com/library/202.pdf

[articulett]

If the only person agreeing with you is plumjam, DD, doesn't that clue you in to the quality of your argument and demeanor?

[articulett]

As much as I hate to disagree with you articulett, I am not sure where you heard this from, but it isn't true. I admit I have not spent any time in North Korea, but I have spent time in South Korea (and if anyone is intolerant of the North Korean regime it is the South Koreans!), and have never heard of this. I will not vouch for the authenticity of this biography, but the group hosting it sounds legitimate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Friendship_Association).

http://www.korea-dpr.com/library/202.pdf

Well... I may be wrong, but I found it on several sources... I do not remember my source, and who knows what people really "believe" and what is meant by god... but I will keep my eyes opened. I saw a documentary on North Korea where they filmed inside and how their mass games and all these unification displays are to please their "Dear Leader".... I mean little kids lived and breathed to please the "dear Leader"... and there were loudspeakers in their homes that they could turn down... but not off... so that he can lead them every day.

I'm having trouble with my cut and paste, but I put "North Korea Kim Jong Il god star" into google search and got a bunch of articles that seem to confirm what a I remember.

In any case... he definitely has a Messiah complex and people seem to be buying into it.

[Darat]

I think the word you want to look up is "Juche" - yep just checked that's the religion/ideology enforced in N Korea which does include worship of the back-combed dear leader.

At a brief glance the Wikipedia article does not appear too bad a starting place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche if you are interested in yet another wacky belief system.

ETA: And here is what "the" theists have to say about it.... ;)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0103/p01s04-woap.html


...snip...

North Koreans are taught to worship Kim Jong Il as a god. In a manner unique among nations, the North exerts extraordinary control through deification - a cult ideology of complete subservience - that goes beyond the "Stalinist" label often used to describe the newly nuclear North.

While outsiders can see film clips of huge festivals honoring Mr. Kim, the extraordinary degree of cult worship is not well known, nor that programs promoting the ideology of Kim are growing, according to refugees, diplomats, and others who have visited the Hermit Kingdom.

...snip...

A GOD? North Korean leader Kim Jong Il posed with soldiers of the Korean Army in April. On Monday, Mr. Kim visited a shrine to his father accompanied only by military officials, and, significantly, no party officials attended.

...snip...

In fact, in a time of famine and poverty, government spending on Kim-family deification - now nearly 40 percent of the visible budget - is the only category in the North's budget to increase,



...snip...

[Hokulele]

Well... I may be wrong, but I found it on several sources... I do not remember my source, and who knows what people really "believe" and what is meant by god... but I will keep my eyes opened. I saw a documentary on North Korea where they filmed inside and how their mass games and all these unification displays are to please their "Dear Leader".... I mean little kids lived and breathed to please the "dear Leader"... and there were loudspeakers in their homes that they could turn down... but not off... so that he can lead them every day.


I agree, there is definitely a cult of personality built up around Kim Il Sung, but I do not think they have gone so far as to deify him. I haven't seen any evidence of the North Koreans believing he was more than human, nor have I seen any supernatural appeals to his corpse. On the other hand, they definitely teach their kids to grow up to be like him.

I'm having trouble with my cut and paste, but I put "North Korea Kim Jong Il god star" into google search and got a bunch of articles that seem to confirm what a I remember.


Most of the sources I found when I punched the same terms into Google pretty much just states what you have without sourcing. The only "official" sources I have seen do not mention the supernatural aspects, only the political.

http://www.korea-dpr.com/library/103.pdf

http://www.dailynk.com/english/read.php?cataId=nk02300&num=42

In any case... he definitely has a Messiah complex and people seem to be buying into it.


That I would agree with wholeheartedly. But I do not see how that helps your case in stating that North Korea is a theist nation. It is without a doubt the most repressive, horrendously propagandized nation when it comes to whitewashing the truth of their leaders, and I would certainly never want to either live there or emulate its policies, but I can't see how it could be considered as a theistic nation by any definition of theism I have seen. The supernatural elements may very well have been added by individuals, either out of misplaced faith or out of a need to further discredit the regime, I just don't see it supported officially. Sorry. :(

[Hokulele]

I think the word you want to look up is "Juche" - yep just checked that's the religion/ideology enforced in N Korea which does include worship of the back-combed dear leader.

At a brief glance the Wikipedia article does not appear too bad a starting place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche if you are interested in yet another wacky belief system.

ETA: And here is what "the" theists have to say about it.... ;)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0103/p01s04-woap.html


Well, quoting South Koreans regarding North Korea when you have an agenda to push is kind of like quoting the Irish about the British in similar situations. I do agree it is a wacky belief system, I just think that the accusations of deification are a bit of hyperbole. Since I am certainly no expert on North Korea, I think it is time for me to update what I know (other than the visits to South Korea over the past two years). In the spirit of skepticism, I am volunteering to stop by my local library tomorrow and start plowing through this.

http://www.amazon.com/Under-Loving-Care-Fatherly-Leader/dp/0312323220/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205831639&sr=8-5

If this supports the deification idea, I will gladly concede. :)

[Darat]

Well, quoting South Koreans regarding North Korea when you have an agenda to push is kind of like quoting the Irish about the British in similar situations. I do agree it is a wacky belief system, I just think that the accusations of deification are a bit of hyperbole. Since I am certainly no expert on North Korea, I think it is time for me to update what I know (other than the visits to South Korea over the past two years). In the spirit of skepticism, I am volunteering to stop by my local library tomorrow and start plowing through this.

http://www.amazon.com/Under-Loving-Care-Fatherly-Leader/dp/0312323220/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205831639&sr=8-5

If this supports the deification idea, I will gladly concede. :)

Well if "the" theists aren't the experts on what counts as god worshipping who is? :p

Seriously - I only included the Christian Science article as a gentle reenforcement of the idea I have already posted about i.e. there is no "the theist" anything in the sense of the opening post just as there is no "the atheist" anything in the same sense.

[Hokulele]

... there is no "the atheist" anything in the same sense.


Heh, I can refer you to any number of posts in Forum Management as evidence otherwise. ;)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not only do I recall that one, there's a highly interesting YouTube video showing the whole thing:

7djZzC6FKhw

Note that the gorilla does not pick the child up, it doesn't carry the child anywhere and it makes no moves to protect the child from other gorillas.

Want to try that argument again?



You do realise that religious people kick the arse of secular people when it comes to altruism? Kind of ruins your argument on that one, too.Your video is a dead link but I can tell you you have the wrong incident Mr Smarty Pants. There were 2 different kids at 2 different zoos and this gorilla carried the boy to the caretaker entrance.

Try this one.
Gp7cZ0AWxfI

And as far as religious people being more altruistic, you are full of it there also. Where's your evidence?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well I still try to maintain an open mind about things unlike fundamentalist atheists who are happy to stop where they are comfortable.What are you talking about? You said there was NO EVIDENCE addressing this subject and I posted a ton of evidence for you. Now you just want to call me names?

When you get around to looking at the evidence let me know if you have anything to actually say about it.

[articulett]

I found my source...

I think this is where I first heard it... I don't know what counts as gods or what counts as religion-- and whether they consider themselves atheists or theists or even have a concept of the term. He certainly has a mythological status... and is seen at least as some sort of "prophet"-- with triune gods and polytheistic gods and gods that are everywhere and everyone being a part of god I'm sure by some definitions he must qualify... But since Christians can't agree on who is and isn't Christian, and atheists are willing to include anyone who doesn't have a belief in any gods-- the many in that category don't call themselves atheists (I imagine because of the added baggage of that gets glommed on the label)-- I'm going to agree with Darat that these are pretty fuzzy terms with a lot of latitude that don't really say much of anything about what exactly a person believes nor how it affects them.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0607/05/acd.01.html

TUCHMAN: North Koreans are told Kim Jong Il was born under a bright star in a double rainbow on a North Korean mountaintop. But, in actuality, he was born in the Soviet Union, where his father was in exile during World War II. His father, Kim Jong Il, was portrayed to his people as a god. He ruled with an iron fist, until his death in 1994, when his son took over.

POST: He was told from very early on that he was the son of God, in effect, a daunting challenge.

TUCHMAN: North Korea has long been an economic basket case. The country has an excess of weapons, but catastrophic shortages of food, leading to widespread, shameful famine. Yet, there is no shortage of food and frivolity for Kim Jong Il.

POST: He lives in a seven-story pleasure palace. He has recruited, at the junior high school level, attractive young women to become members of what are called the Joy Brigades, to be providing pleasure and relaxation to the hardworking officials of -- of his inner circle.

TUCHMAN: His cult of personality relies on exaggerating his achievements. North Korea's official newspaper has said, in college, he published 1,500 books. That's more than one a day.

The paper also declared, the first time Kim Jong Il ever played golf , he finished 38 under par, the greatest round of golf ever. It's quite fair to question his publishing and golf abilities, but one cannot deny his power and ability to inspire fear.

[articulett]

Binti is the female gorilla that saved a kid and carried him to the entrance... she was Koko's niece... and she cared for this kid with her own infant on her back. The other was a male gorilla... and he was an older silverback and protected a kid who fell in from the curious and agitated young male gorillas who want to investigate in a seemingly aggressive manner. He sits in front of the kid and chased the loud youthful gorillas away... and then he gently strokes the kid with the back of his giant hand like you'd stroke a kitties whiskers. The kid wakes up and cries and it freaks the male silverback out a bit and he goes away.

I think both are pretty damn touching and I have them both on video.

[articulett]

I don't think anyone has even agreed with dogdoctor that there is such a thing as a fundamentalist atheist, have they? Anyone, except plumjam I mean. I have him and TA on ignore, so they don't count. I meant any respectable member of this forum.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Did you see the dolphin possibly helping the whales in the news a couple days ago?

Dolphin appears to guide stranded whales out to sea in New Zealand (http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/838261,nzealand031208.article)Before Moko arrived, rescue workers had been working for more than an hour to get two pygmy sperm whales, a mother and her calf, back out to sea after they were stranded Monday off Mahia Beach, said Conservation Department worker Malcolm Smith.

But Smith said the whales restranded themselves four times on a sandbar slightly out to sea from the beach, about 300 miles northeast of the capital, Wellington. It looked likely they would have to be euthanized to prevent a prolonged death, he said.

''They kept getting disorientated and stranding again,'' said Smith, who was among the rescuers. ''They obviously couldn't find their way back past (the sandbar) to the sea.''

Then along came Moko, who approached the whales and appeared to lead them as they swam 200 yards along the beach and through a channel out to the open sea.

''Moko just came flying through the water and pushed in between us and the whales,'' Juanita Symes, another rescuer, told The Associated Press. ''She got them to head toward the hill, where the channel is. It was an amazing experience.''

Anton van Helden, a marine mammals expert at New Zealand's national museum, Te Papa Tongarewa, said the reports of Moko's rescue were ''fantastic'' but believable because the dolphins have ''a great capacity for altruistic activities.'' Do you suppose dolphins get their altruism from the big dolphin in the sky? ;)

[Dogdoctor]

What are the possible reasons for using logical fallacies? One would be you aren't smart enough to know they are fallacies. Another would be it's an emotional response. Another would be you want to show others how useless they are in arguments. Another would be you are trying to argue a point but you have no logical arguments so you whip out the illogical ones. If people believed you because you made an argument using a logical fallacy all you have done is created a believer in your own dogma. You have a dogma which you believe in and aren't interested in learning anything else about and don't have an open mind to the possibility that you may be wrong and you can't find logical arguments for so you use illogical ones. If you convince someone you are right by use of illogic you have created a believer. It's pointless to use them unless you want to promote a dogmatic philosophy. Also a person who intentionally uses illogical arguments to promote their views is deceitful and therefor immoral.

[Dogdoctor]

Did you see the dolphin possibly helping the whales in the news a couple days ago?

Dolphin appears to guide stranded whales out to sea in New Zealand (http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/838261,nzealand031208.article)Do you suppose dolphins get their altruism from the big dolphin in the sky? ;)

I see so you can read the minds of animals and know the intentions of the animals?

[Dogdoctor]

What are you talking about? You said there was NO EVIDENCE addressing this subject and I posted a ton of evidence for you. Now you just want to call me names?

When you get around to looking at the evidence let me know if you have anything to actually say about it.

For one thing those aren't proof of anything, and are opinions by perhaps some very knowledgeable people. Was there a point that those people were making that you wanted to make? You are just appealing to their "expertise". This would be commonly known as a logical fallacy called an appeal to authority except that likely most of them would agree with me to large extent.

[slingblade]

I see so you can read the minds of animals and know the intentions of the animals?


So the words "possibly" and "appears" don't leave enough wiggle room?

I rather think they do.

Funny that your comment follows immediately after your post about fallacies. You don't see anything in your last comment that might indicate you created a strawman fallacy? I do.

When you walk in the door after work, and your dog barks, jumps, and wags his tail, are you reading his mind if you feel that indicates he's happy to see you?

[Dogdoctor]

So the words "possibly" and "appears" don't leave enough wiggle room?

I rather think they do.

Funny that your comment follows immediately after your post about fallacies. You don't see anything in your last comment that might indicate you created a strawman fallacy? I do.

When you walk in the door after work, and your dog barks, jumps, and wags his tail, are you reading his mind if you feel that indicates he's happy to see you?

That post was supposed to support some point of animals having morality like humans do. If it was only one of many possible explanations then it was a weak post. I was just pointing out the weakness of the post.

[Dogdoctor]

I suppose I could post about the killer dolphins who go around killing other members of their species. Does that mean they knowingly violated the moral code of dolphins?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/01/25/eadolphin125.xml

[Dogdoctor]

Oh OH OH I get it. Some of you still think I am a Christian. DUH!!!!

[plumjam]

Plumjam. Allow me to introduce you to the scientific process.

Definitions (http://www.ncsu.edu/labwrite/res/res-glossary.html)You have taken a single variable from thousands and summarily declared that is the variable which created the outcome.

Needless to say your reasoning is grossly flawed.

If it's definition tennis today here's one for you to ponder:

superiority complex
n.
1. An exaggerated feeling of being superior to others.
2. A psychological defense mechanism in which feelings of superiority counter or conceal feelings of inferiority

[The Atheist]

There were 2 different kids at 2 different zoos and this gorilla carried the boy to the caretaker entrance.

Come on, a hand-reared gorilla and you're trying to make any case out of it? I thought you were trying to prove animal altruism. The one you showed probably expected to get a treat for it! Talk about post hoc fallacies.

And as far as religious people being more altruistic, you are full of it there also. Where's your evidence?

What a typical response. You have no idea, yet immediately say that I'm full of it. What are you scared of? Why are you dismissing something which is demonstrably true - on the basis of no evidence at all? Sounds suspiciously dogmatic to me.

Evidence, lovie? Read 'em and weep. We've done this subject before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71711).

Do you suppose dolphins get their altruism from the big dolphin in the sky? ;)

Matter of fact, not only did I see it, I started a thread on it and contributed to another one on the same subject, right here!

Again, you're showing your post hoc reasoning without asking some very important questions - was the dolphin merely playing a game? Did it communicate with the whales? Did it figure what the humans were doing and lend a hand? Was it just coincidence? Unless you've gone a step further than anyone else so far and actually interviewed the dolphin, you're backing your case with as much factual content as the average religion.

[articulett]

I think it's well recognized among the scientific community that animals and creatures without religions show both altruism and behaviors associated with morality. I find my dogs more moral than many people-- they are kind to my cats, protective of me, and look damn ashamed when I'm mad at them.

It's not a logical fallacy. Morality evolved. We know a lot about it... what brain portions and which chemicals affect it... how it can be enhanced... how it's common in social animals... even the basic feedback mechanisms. http://www.nyas.org/podcasts/nyaspodcast.xml

http://www.nyas.org/events/eventDetail.asp?date=2/26/2008%206:00:00%20PM&eventID=10855
http://www.nyas.org/snc/update.asp?UpdateID=121

Your whole premise is a fallacy... this idea that religion makes people behave better and more moral is incorrect-- http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html You refuse to acknowledge this and carry on with your bigoted ideas that religion makes people moral and atheism leads to evil and immorality. It's confirmation bias and ignorance of all facts that negate that premise which continually lead you to believe that and find Skepticgirls comments irrelevent. They are irrelevant to you because you want to believe there is such thing as "fundamental atheism" and that you in your "agnosticism" are more moral and open minded than those "fundamental atheists" because you see faith as something good and useful.

It's a delusion of your that you use to perpetuate your bigoted behavior towards people like skepticgirl and myself. You think you are more diplomatic and right than anyone else thinks you are. And you refuse to acknowledge any facts that could clue you in to the fact that your perception is the problem--not "fundamental atheists", skepticgirl, her links, or anything else. Your argument fails across the board. You are using it to excuse your bigotry and obnoxious behavior towards vocal non-believers.

[Irony]

Dogdoctor, what exactly is a fundamentalist atheist? What are the fundamentals of atheism?

As an atheist, I can only think of one thing we have in common, and that's not even a belief. It's the absence of one.

For all your talk to attack the argument, not the arguer. The only thing I have seen you do in this thread is attack atheists. Not any arguments, not any individual actions, but atheists as a whole because of a few stereotypes that have precious little grounding in reality.

So what if some atheist somewhere whom I've never even met did something you found vaguely offensive? Why does that effect me? Why should I care? Give me a good reason and maybe I'll side with you on some issue. Why does the fact that someone else also doesn't happen to believe in Thor make him my spokesperson?

Atheists are not a cabal out to torture religious people. We are not a mob of bloodthirsty, venom-dripping-from-our-fangs, inhuman monsters. And I am honestly quite disappointed that I even have to tell you this.

[articulett]

And I don't think you are a Christian, Dogdoctor. I think you are an apologist... and a bigot against atheists. I think you exaggerate sinister intent and imaginary things that aren't there in everything an outspoken atheist says and are blinded to your far more egregious behavior as you imagine yourself open minded and diplomatic for being "agnostic" or whatever it is you label yourself. I don't care what you believe--it's quite obvious that atheists are a threat to it. You clearly see yourself as an example of something that no one else sees you as an example of. You are impervious to the fact that no one is agreeing with or following your argument. I think it's time to look at yourself. You are appearing a wee bit misogynistic as well, I might add. What is it about atheism that you find so threatening and scary. We already dessimated your atheism=evil=immorality=communism arguments. Who ever put that canard in your head did you and us a disservice. It isn't true. A lack of belief in gods is no more "anything" than a lack of belief in demons. A rationalistic world view is not a recipe for any war or human suffering. And religion doesn't make people more moral--it just makes them think they are more moral than everyone else-- kind of like you. I don't think anyone is looking to your lead as an example of logical reasoning, morality, and diplomacy, and I can't imagine why you are writing with the self important assumption of one who thinks as much. Are you just writing this to feel special and good about yourself? Have you no capacity to receive feedback?

[thaiboxerken]

That post was supposed to support some point of animals having morality like humans do.

Some animals have morality, but they aren't like human morality. Did you just move the goal post from "show that animals have morality" to "show that animals have human-like morality"?

[Dogdoctor]

I think it's well recognized among the scientific community that animals and creatures without religions show both altruism and behaviors associated with morality. I find my dogs more moral than many people-- they are kind to my cats, protective of me, and look damn ashamed when I'm mad at them.

It's not a logical fallacy. Morality evolved. We know a lot about it... what brain portions and which chemicals affect it... how it can be enhanced... how it's common in social animals... even the basic feedback mechanisms. http://www.nyas.org/podcasts/nyaspodcast.xml

http://www.nyas.org/events/eventDetail.asp?date=2/26/2008%206:00:00%20PM&eventID=10855
http://www.nyas.org/snc/update.asp?UpdateID=121

Your whole premise is a fallacy... this idea that religion makes people behave better and more moral is incorrect-- http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html You refuse to acknowledge this and carry on with your bigoted ideas that religion makes people moral and atheism leads to evil and immorality. It's confirmation bias and ignorance of all facts that negate that premise which continually lead you to believe that and find Skepticgirls comments irrelevent. They are irrelevant to you because you want to believe there is such thing as "fundamental atheism" and that you in your "agnosticism" are more moral and open minded than those "fundamental atheists" because you see faith as something good and useful.

It's a delusion of your that you use to perpetuate your bigoted behavior towards people like skepticgirl and myself. You think you are more diplomatic and right than anyone else thinks you are. And you refuse to acknowledge any facts that could clue you in to the fact that your perception is the problem--not "fundamental atheists", skepticgirl, her links, or anything else. Your argument fails across the board. You are using it to excuse your bigotry and obnoxious behavior towards vocal non-believers.

You interpret your dog behavior as moral or ashamed and whether it is or not is another question. Whatever you think, it hasn't been shown that animals understand morality (other than us humans) and obviously some of us are clueless too. You are arguing a strawman about the origin of morals. They are part of our genetics and part of our thinking and part of our conditioning in society. They are not totally genetic. We think about our morals or at least some of us do and learn about them and improve on them over and above any genetic code. I never said they were created by god, I said they were created by religious people.
You continue to use personal attacks on me calling me a bigot etc. What's your excuse? Don't you understand that whether or not I am a bigot has nothing to do with the logic of my arguments? Why do you persist in this behavior? Does it make you feel good? Seriously I wonder what you think you are accomplishing.
The link is just another appeal to authority

[Dogdoctor]

Some animals have morality, but they aren't like human morality. Did you just move the goal post from "show that animals have morality" to "show that animals have human-like morality"?

I am not sure where the goal post was but if it was show that animals have something that resembles morals then I will agree but then what? How does that relate to our discussion?

[Dogdoctor]

And I don't think you are a Christian, Dogdoctor. I think you are an apologist... and a bigot against atheists. I think you exaggerate sinister intent and imaginary things that aren't there in everything an outspoken atheist says and are blinded to your far more egregious behavior as you imagine yourself open minded and diplomatic for being "agnostic" or whatever it is you label yourself. I don't care what you believe--it's quite obvious that atheists are a threat to it. You clearly see yourself as an example of something that no one else sees you as an example of. You are impervious to the fact that no one is agreeing with or following your argument. I think it's time to look at yourself. You are appearing a wee bit misogynistic as well, I might add. What is it about atheism that you find so threatening and scary. We already dessimated your atheism=evil=immorality=communism arguments. Who ever put that canard in your head did you and us a disservice. It isn't true. A lack of belief in gods is no more "anything" than a lack of belief in demons. A rationalistic world view is not a recipe for any war or human suffering. And religion doesn't make people more moral--it just makes them think they are more moral than everyone else-- kind of like you. I don't think anyone is looking to your lead as an example of logical reasoning, morality, and diplomacy, and I can't imagine why you are writing with the self important assumption of one who thinks as much. Are you just writing this to feel special and good about yourself? Have you no capacity to receive feedback?
Oh no I am surrounded by strawmen. You have no clue what I think. so why do you persist in attemtping to evolve me into your punching boy.

[thaiboxerken]

You don't see the relevance of your moving goal posts? That's strange, since you just attempted to lecture people on logical fallacies.

[Dogdoctor]

You don't see the relevance of your moving goal posts? That's strange, since you just attempted to lecture people on logical fallacies.

I am fallible so please it explain it to me as I want to improve myself and learn.

[dglas]

I have serious qualms about the idea of shutting up on important issues because someone will be offended or their feelings will be hurt. I mean, did it ever occur to theists that "atheists" might be "hurt" by all the vilification spewed at them by the vast majority of theists? Why are you not condemning those vilifiers as "immoral."

Dogdoctor, since you have proven yourself quite aware of many various fallacies of reasoning, would you be so kind as to tell us which one that is? Maybe you will find it easier to see when it is the "atheist" who is hurt instead of the theist. The difficulty lies in that anyone can then be "hurt" as a rhetorical ploy to shut contrary opinions up.

We cannot use emotional responses as the means of evaluating arguments, way of evaluating them is needed. I, personally, take my share of derision from theists, so I thicken my skin and wade through it. Too bad if the theist is offended or hurt; too bad if they can't bear having their dark history and their horrific thinking pointed out to them.

Go ahead and vilify me, go ahead and attack me, go ahead and hurt my feelings. There are more important issues at stake than how I feel about this or that topic.

In any event, to depict someone as immoral because they dare to speak is not entirely correct, at least in this society. This society, including most, if not all of the western world, values free speech above personal offendedness - and for very good reason. Some try to balance things some, but on the average, as a morality, we value freedom of speech above sensitivity to offence.

It would be more legitimate to claim someone is immoral for trying to use offence to curtail others speaking.

[Irony]

Oh no I am surrounded by strawmen. You have no clue what I think. so why do you persist in attemtping to evolve me into your punching boy.

No, we don't know what you think. We only know what you type. And what you have typed so far is bigoted. It's no different than a person writing a rant against black people because they're "a bunch of drug abusers and gangsters". Bad stereotypes do not constitute an argument.

[The Atheist]

Dogdoctor, what exactly is a fundamentalist atheist? What are the fundamentals of atheism?

The meanings of the various types of atheism have now been established and "fundamental atheist" applies to an atheist who cannot accept that some facets of some religions are beneficial and who ignores the preponderance of evidence showing that to be the case. If you're unable to accept factual data because it disagrees with your own views, then you're a fundie.

The atheist doppelganger of a fundamental christian.

[Irony]

The meanings of the various types of atheism have now been established and "fundamental atheist" applies to an atheist who cannot accept that some facets of some religions are beneficial and who ignores the preponderance of evidence showing that to be the case. If you're unable to accept factual data because it disagrees with your own views, then you're a fundie.

The atheist doppelganger of a fundamental christian.

A fundamentalist is someone who follows a set of fundamentals. Someone who ignores evidence that contradicts their position is biased. If they do so because of intolerance they are bigoted. Both would make sense in the situation "fundamentalist atheist" was used, but no matter how you parse it, that term is nonsense.

[Silentknight]

I found my source...

I think this is where I first heard it... I don't know what counts as gods or what counts as religion-- and whether they consider themselves atheists or theists or even have a concept of the term. He certainly has a mythological status... and is seen at least as some sort of "prophet"-- with triune gods and polytheistic gods and gods that are everywhere and everyone being a part of god I'm sure by some definitions he must qualify... But since Christians can't agree on who is and isn't Christian, and atheists are willing to include anyone who doesn't have a belief in any gods-- the many in that category don't call themselves atheists (I imagine because of the added baggage of that gets glommed on the label)-- I'm going to agree with Darat that these are pretty fuzzy terms with a lot of latitude that don't really say much of anything about what exactly a person believes nor how it affects them.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0607/05/acd.01.html

TUCHMAN: North Koreans are told Kim Jong Il was born under a bright star in a double rainbow on a North Korean mountaintop. But, in actuality, he was born in the Soviet Union, where his father was in exile during World War II. His father, Kim Jong Il, was portrayed to his people as a god. He ruled with an iron fist, until his death in 1994, when his son took over.

POST: He was told from very early on that he was the son of God, in effect, a daunting challenge.

TUCHMAN: North Korea has long been an economic basket case. The country has an excess of weapons, but catastrophic shortages of food, leading to widespread, shameful famine. Yet, there is no shortage of food and frivolity for Kim Jong Il.

POST: He lives in a seven-story pleasure palace. He has recruited, at the junior high school level, attractive young women to become members of what are called the Joy Brigades, to be providing pleasure and relaxation to the hardworking officials of -- of his inner circle.

TUCHMAN: His cult of personality relies on exaggerating his achievements. North Korea's official newspaper has said, in college, he published 1,500 books. That's more than one a day.

The paper also declared, the first time Kim Jong Il ever played golf , he finished 38 under par, the greatest round of golf ever. It's quite fair to question his publishing and golf abilities, but one cannot deny his power and ability to inspire fear.

I heard of that too, although it's actually the same point I was trying to make. Communist regimes are atheist in name only. This does not mean they're irreligious at all. Communism is the official religion, the state and its laws are the church and its dogma, and the ruler is worshiped as a god. The common causal factor for the greatest atrocities throughout history is extreme religiosity, not the lack of religion.

Additionally, as in places like China or North Korea, they do allow some other religions to be practiced. They are usually under very restricted conditions, yes, but they still technically allow them.
I don't think anyone has even agreed with dogdoctor that there is such a thing as a fundamentalist atheist, have they? Anyone, except plumjam I mean. I have him and TA on ignore, so they don't count. I meant any respectable member of this forum.
I have complained about "fundamentalist atheists" before, although I don't define it the same way as theist apologists do (e.g. when they accuse all atheists of being fundamentalists). I use the term only because I've run into people like this myself. They use their atheism (fallaciously) to justify the rest of their stances on politics, ethics, science, you name it. But atheism has nothing to do with these at all, and it's just as much of a misuse of the term on their part as when theists assign other attributes to atheists in their strawman arguments.

I'm talking about atheists who have arrived at the conclusion in any way other than reason or logic. I met someone who was angry with God, therefore he calls himself an atheist to express his bitterness. Yet he hadn't the slightest grasp of how facts and evidence are used to lead to conclusions. I met someone who wanted religion eradicated, thinking it would make the world a better place. Yet he was no skeptic; he fully bought into the Jesus-Horus-Mithras connection, and was a rabid 9/11 truther as well.

JREF is a skeptic community, not an atheist organization. You aren't going to find too many non-skeptic atheists, therefore the strawman about fundy atheists is completely out of place. Communists, Neo-Nazis, and Raelians are all atheists, but the moment you see one around here, let me know. Any atheist such as the ones I mentioned who showed up here and tried to pull that crap would quickly get shot down-- by other atheists.

[Irony]

I have complained about "fundamentalist atheists" before, although I don't define it the same way as theist apologists do (e.g. when they accuse all atheists of being fundamentalists). I use the term only because I've run into people like this myself. They use their atheism (fallaciously) to justify the rest of their stances on politics, ethics, science, you name it. But atheism has nothing to do with these at all, and it's just as much of a misuse of the term on their part as when theists assign other attributes to atheists in their strawman arguments.

OK, now that definition actually makes sense.

[The Atheist]

A fundamentalist is someone who follows a set of fundamentals.

Bingo!

Once they've established those fundamentals, neither evidence nor wild horses can drag them away from them.

The other explanation is unwieldy and really just a strawman - simply because it's not possible to "use" atheism to shape a stance on science or politics, as noted.

[articulett]

OK, now that definition actually makes sense.

Yeah...that seems to make more sense than what any of the apologists are saying. I don't know of anyone like TA mentions... he hears anyone who says anything critical about religion as saying "All religion are bad and evil". I don't think any atheist thinks that. It's just that they aren't true... they have no claim to knowledge or morality or divine truths or wisdom... they are primitive superstitions for the most part. Sure, they've done good and lots of people get comfort from them... but, as pointed out, you could say the same of monarchies or slave ownership or welfare or communes... it's irrelevant and it's not a cover for the harms that come from them or the ignorant idea that religions promote--that faith is ennobling... and all good is due to god... and all evil is due to "not enough faith" in the right unbelievable story or invisible man.

I think the apologists refuse to hear this... and instead pretend that atheists are "god haters" or think all faith is bad or harmful. There's just no reason to treat one brand of woo different than others... we should need to defer to Christianity any more than we defer to Scientology or Astrology. We should be as free to criticize the bible as we would the Quoran or Dianetics or Sylvia Browne's literature. They are asking us to treat religion differently than we treat other woo... and vilifying us when we don't from my perspective. They give us no reason to treat religious claims or beliefs differently than other claims and beliefs and yet they defend it like it's worthy of special protection. Why? Where are all the people made fabulous by faith and religion. Why are secular societies consistently higher in regards to social health? Why should theists be as private about their beliefs as they expect me to be about my lack of them? Why shouldn't we roll our eyes at silly outdated primitive ways of thinking and call bigotry for what it is? If you think it's fine for some one to say something about Scientology in general or belief in psychics in general... then it's time you allow the same for religious beliefs until or unless there is some evidentiary reason why it gets special treatment.

People cannot understand that they have been lead to believe untrue things until the topic is open for discussion. People cannot examine their biases until consciousness is raised on the subject. The apologists are forever trying to stop the discussion by labeling atheists as "militant", "fundamentalists", "shrill" "evil", "communists", "Darwinsts", "secularists"-- whatever words they can use to incite fear and hatred over "lack of belief in any gods". It's the bigotry I fear. Not lack of belief in invisible forms of consciousness that play around with our planet and our "eternities".

Invisible beings are no threat to me. Atheist bigotry is a threat to me and many people I love and respect... many people afraid to speak up because of reactions like Dogdoctors and the like. Irrationality in the name of "faith". Bigotry dressed up as "morality"-- "love the sinner and hate the sin" platitudes come to mind.

I think I can love the believer without loving or respecting the belief. I'm certainly willing to respect their beliefs and opinions to the respect they respect mine. The theists and apologists have trouble separating the two (belief from believer) because their faith has ensured a fuzzy connection and knee jerk defense of anything that threatens "the faith".

And it works... even some non-believers seem to buy into the "protect faith at all costs" goofiness. Blindly and unaware that they are doing so, it seems.

[The Atheist]

I don't know of anyone like TA mentions... he hears anyone who says anything critical about religion as saying "All religion are bad and evil". I don't think any atheist thinks that.

Arti has me on ignore, or at least she says so twice each post, so I'll take it as true and post for the benefit of any impartial observers.

I love this, from the very same Articulett that I have quoted time and time again, ad bloody nauseum, stating that all religion is bad. And if there were even a shred of doubt that atheists think like that, Arti was highly active in a poll/thread which showed that almost half of responses saw all religion as bad.

But it's me who won't accept the truth.

:bgrin:

[Hokulele]

I found my source...

<snipped North Korea information>


My local library did have that book (I have it now), and it is very good. I have only skimmed the bits on Juche, its origins, and its implications, and it is even fuzzier than any of the sources we have found so far. Since this is turning into quite a bit of a derail, we can start a separate thread on it and move any posts that seem relevant if you are interested. For my last post on this here, I would have to say that in my opinion (and it only opinion at this point), I wouldn't call it theism, but I would definitely call it a cult. A scary one.

ETA: Just read the full transcript you linked to. I would be much more comfortable agreeing with you if the source in the transcript was one of the expert', not a journalist doing a voice-over. The book I am reading made no reference to the stars and rainbows, and gave political reasons for the change in birthplace rather than religious ones. I will have to say that the jury is still out on deification.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I see so you can read the minds of animals and know the intentions of the animals?Apparently you need a vocabulary review. You appear to have misread what I said.

Appears: (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/appears)3. To seem or look to be: appeared unhappy. See Synonyms at seem.
4. To seem likely: They will be late, as it appears.Seem: (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/seem)ntr.v. seemed, seem·ing, seems
1. To give the impression of being; appear: The child seems healthy, but the doctor is concerned.
2. To appear to one's own opinion or mind: I can't seem to get the story straight.
3. To appear to be true, probable, or evident: It seems you object to the plan. It seems like rain. He seems to have worked in sales for several years.
4. To appear to exist: There seems no reason to postpone it.

[articulett]

I am curious as to what the average North Korean believes... I wonder if they consider themselves "theists" or if they have a term for that word. Gods can be so many things... I haven't found any that I could believe in... I don't believe in anything supernatural and I don't know if they think of Kim Jong Il or his dad as having supernatural powers or divine aspects. And I can't tell the difference between Kim Jong Il as a "messiah" type and Jim Jones... the leader of the peoples' temple. I don't think the latter would be considered atheistic and I'm curious as to what differentiates Kim Jong Il from Jim Jones in regards to how he's seen by his followers. I'd mostly be interested in what the people think... but this is the only thing I ran across. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57639

To me it reads as a guy who went from one belief system to another... not one who went from non-belief in a god (atheism) to belief.

Granted I didn't look hard and I'm not sure I really care. Beliefs are weird things to pin down. I'm just curious what these people believe about human origins and such and where Kim Jong Il fits into that picture... Do they know the word atheist or have any similar term and do they think they are atheists or theists I wonder? If you find out anything of interest it would be cool. I suspect lots of people have no idea what they believe... they've just learned to parrot a belief in whatever it is they are told it's good to believe in (or be "agnostic" about). I'm really sort of interested in how they label themselves and "others".

[Skeptic Ginger]

For one thing those aren't proof of anything, and are opinions by perhaps some very knowledgeable people. Was there a point that those people were making that you wanted to make? You are just appealing to their "expertise". This would be commonly known as a logical fallacy called an appeal to authority except that likely most of them would agree with me to large extent.Apparently you need another vocabulary lesson and a bit of review about the scientific method.

Evidence: (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence)1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es: (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence)1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.in evidence: (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence)1. Plainly visible; to be seen: It was early, and few pedestrians were in evidence on the city streets.
2. Law As legal evidence: submitted the photograph in evidence.

Conclusion: (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conclusion)3. A judgment or decision reached after deliberation.
6. Logic
a. The proposition that must follow from the major and minor premises in a syllogism.
b. The proposition concluded from one or more premises; a deduction.

Proof:1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
2.
a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.
3.
a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
4. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.
5. Law The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.


Scientific methodScientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

[Skeptic Ginger]

That post was supposed to support some point of animals having morality like humans do. If it was only one of many possible explanations then it was a weak post. I was just pointing out the weakness of the post.You seem to have the most shallow view of what creates morality, of how the mind comes to a conclusion about what is and isn't moral.

Are you suggesting we determine what is and isn't moral by magic?

Are you suggesting morality was put in the human mind by god and it cannot be explained by evolutionary processes?

Do you know how silly that notion is?

If you took to time to read the research and investigation into animal behaviors that mirror human behaviors considered to be from moral choices you would know that your dismissal of the evidence is naive.

[Skeptic Ginger]

see post above

[Skeptic Ginger]

I suppose I could post about the killer dolphins who go around killing other members of their species. Does that mean they knowingly violated the moral code of dolphins?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/01/25/eadolphin125.xmlAs if all humans had the same moral values?

[Skeptic Ginger]

If it's definition tennis today here's one for you to ponder:The evidence and arguments I have posted speak for me. If you feel inferior reading my posts that is the result of the evidence and logic you cannot counter, not any feeling of superiority I might have.

[Dogdoctor]

As if all humans had the same moral values?

Yes but humans know they have morals, do dolphins?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Come on, a hand-reared gorilla and you're trying to make any case out of it? I thought you were trying to prove animal altruism. The one you showed probably expected to get a treat for it! Talk about post hoc fallacies.



What a typical response. You have no idea, yet immediately say that I'm full of it. What are you scared of? Why are you dismissing something which is demonstrably true - on the basis of no evidence at all? Sounds suspiciously dogmatic to me.

Evidence, lovie? Read 'em and weep. We've done this subject before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71711).



Matter of fact, not only did I see it, I started a thread on it and contributed to another one on the same subject, right here!

Again, you're showing your post hoc reasoning without asking some very important questions - was the dolphin merely playing a game? Did it communicate with the whales? Did it figure what the humans were doing and lend a hand? Was it just coincidence? Unless you've gone a step further than anyone else so far and actually interviewed the dolphin, you're backing your case with as much factual content as the average religion.So you can't even admit you ignorantly thought I was talking about the incident you noted when I was talking about a completely different incident? Aren't you embarrassed for making such a foolish mistake?

If you want to argue about the evidence for the roots of human morality which can be observed in animal behavior, you'll have to spend a few hours bringing you level of knowledge on the subject up to speed.

[Wolfman]

I think if we were able to remove all the theists in the world their would be chaos because atheists don't agree on moral issues or other simple things needed for a functioning society. For instance I would say it is slightly immoral to fight with religious people in most instances because it is self serving and creates ill will and needlessly causes discomfort to others. I am sure others disagree with me on this.
Ummm...dogdoctor...

...could you please demonstrate to me where theists "agree on moral issues or other simple things needed for a functioning society"?

Please state one moral belief that is held in common by all theists.

Hell...even peoples of the same religions have no more success in demonstrating unity. The Christian church is fractured into countless sub-groups because of their inability to agree with each other and work together. Differences in Islamic theology cause national wars (witness Iran and Iraq). I could go on and on and on and on.

Your argument here has no validity whatsoever; you point out a perceived 'weakness' in "atheism", yet entirely ignore the fact that "theism" suffers from exactly the same weakness.

You also do seem to be entirely incapable of (or unwilling to) understand that "atheism" in and of itself doesn't represent anything. I've gone to great lengths to differentiate "Humanism" -- which has a specific moral code, values, etc. -- from "atheism". Yet you ignore that entirely.

Sorry...but I'm gonna' have to put your arguments down more to a combination of ignorance and willful bias.

[Dogdoctor]

You seem to have the most shallow view of what creates morality, of how the mind comes to a conclusion about what is and isn't moral.

Are you suggesting we determine what is and isn't moral by magic?

Are you suggesting morality was put in the human mind by god and it cannot be explained by evolutionary processes?

Do you know how silly that notion is?

If you took to time to read the research and investigation into animal behaviors that mirror human behaviors considered to be from moral choices you would know that your dismissal of the evidence is naive.

Do you have a problem making a post without making it a personal atack on me? Do you think it helps your point of veiw to do so? Does it make you feel good to attack me? Will you ever stop? Should I ever answer anything you post because you will just present more logical fallacies?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Bingo!

Once they've established those fundamentals, neither evidence nor wild horses can drag them away from them.

The other explanation is unwieldy and really just a strawman - simply because it's not possible to "use" atheism to shape a stance on science or politics, as noted.And the evidence for the validity of god beliefs that atheists have ignored is?

[Dogdoctor]

Ummm...dogdoctor...

...could you please demonstrate to me where theists "agree on moral issues or other simple things needed for a functioning society"?

Please state one moral belief that is held in common by all theists.

Hell...even peoples of the same religions have no more success in demonstrating unity. The Christian church is fractured into countless sub-groups because of their inability to agree with each other and work together. Differences in Islamic theology cause national wars (witness Iran and Iraq). I could go on and on and on and on.

Your argument here has no validity whatsoever; you point out a perceived 'weakness' in "atheism", yet entirely ignore the fact that "theism" suffers from exactly the same weakness.

You also do seem to be entirely incapable of (or unwilling to) understand that "atheism" in and of itself doesn't represent anything. I've gone to great lengths to differentiate "Humanism" -- which has a specific moral code, values, etc. -- from "atheism". Yet you ignore that entirely.

Sorry...but I'm gonna' have to put your arguments down more to a combination of ignorance and willful bias.
Religious people are raised to believe things like the ten commandments and other things and for the most part they follow them. It's not rocket science. Atheism has no beliefs only the lack of belief. Ok so theism has similar problems however unlike atheists, religions have a core of values and morals that are shared with other similar religions. Atheist values and morality are hilly willy all over the place and atheists don't share a core of values and morals.
eta
Ok not exactly that they don't have shared values and morals which they may have associated with living in communities where religion has existed. But that once removed from the constraints of such a society those values would fade away into chaos with time.

[Hokulele]

... I'm just curious what these people believe about human origins and such and where Kim Jong Il fits into that picture...


I have just started wading through this book (847 pages!), but fortunately it has an excellent index and footnoting with sources. Once I get through most of it, I will start that other thread as it is more interesting than I thought. However, here is one excerpt that may interest you, given your background. ;) (This is part of a section describing changes in the early 1990's. My bold.)

Some of the younger officials also embodied a fascinating answer to a very real question: In a country that neither taught nor understood free-market economics, where could one find competent managers for a push to join the global economy? It turned out that some of the rising ecnomic stars had been trained in the sciences - one of the few areas in which a North Korean could get an education with a relatively small component of ideological cant. Kim Jong-u, a vice-minister of external economic affairs and chairman of the Committee for the Promotion of External Economic Cooperation, had been a nuclear scientist. Deputy Premier Kim Dal-hyon himself had been a chemist and head of North Korea's Academy of Sciences.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am curious as to what the average North Korean believes... ...N Koreans like the rest of us are products of the information they are exposed to. The information in N Korea is more tightly controlled than just about anywhere else on the planet. A few people exposed only to this limited information may observe that the claims about Kim Jong Il don't hold up to what they observe. But from listening to Madam Albright speak of N Korea, I get the impression a lot of N Koreans do believe what they have been fed all their lives about Jong Il.

[Wolfman]

Religious people are raised to believe things like the ten commandments and other things and for the most part they follow them. It's not rocket science. Atheism has no beliefs only the lack of belief. Ok so theism has similar problems however unlike atheists, religions have a core of values and morals that are shared with other similar religions. Atheist values and morality are hilly willy all over the place and atheists don't share a core of values and morals.
eta
Ok not exactly that they don't have shared values and morals which they may have associated with living in communities where religion has existed. But that once removed from the constraints of such a society those values would fade away into chaos with time.Wow...talk about an entirely illogical and inconsistent argument.

Okay, once again. Tell me one single moral teaching or belief that all theists hold in common!!! You can't do it, because no such belief exists.

Yes, "theists" have moral beliefs. But they are not consistent. They are not universal. In fact, there are just as many divisions among theistic beliefs (in fact, there are probably more) than there are among atheists.

And once again, I have given an example of an atheistic belief system that has very clearly defined moral and ethical beliefs. Humanism. But you entirely ignore that.

I have to admit, I'm leaning more and more towards skeptigirl's disdain for your arguments; you make general assertions of 'truth', yet beyond very vague and general claims, do nothing to support those claims whatsoever.

You made the claim. Now support it. Give me an example of ANY moral or ethical belief that is shared in common by all theists, or that is an implicit/inescapable conclusion from being a theist. And don't say, "They all believe in god", that is not a moral belief or position.

[The Atheist]

So you can't even admit you ignorantly thought I was talking about the incident you noted when I was talking about a completely different incident? Aren't you embarrassed for making such a foolish mistake?

Not even slightly. I thought you were trying to make a statement on animal morality, and therefore figured it must be the other one as the one you show doesn't support your case at all.

If you want to argue about the evidence for the roots of human morality which can be observed in animal behavior, you'll have to spend a few hours bringing you level of knowledge on the subject up to speed.

Coming from someone using a trained monkey* and a single and ambiguous anecdote about dolphins, that's a bold statement.

And the evidence for the validity of god beliefs that atheists have ignored is?

Do you ever make sense? To someone other than yourself, that is? What does that have to do with any of this discussion?

*yes, I do know it's an ape

[articulett]

Religious people are raised to believe things like the ten commandments and other things and for the most part they follow them. It's not rocket science. Atheism has no beliefs only the lack of belief. Ok so theism has similar problems however unlike atheists, religions have a core of values and morals that are shared with other similar religions. Atheist values and morality are hilly willy all over the place and atheists don't share a core of values and morals.
eta
Ok not exactly that they don't have shared values and morals which they may have associated with living in communities where religion has existed. But that once removed from the constraints of such a society those values would fade away into chaos with time.

Most people who say they believe or follow the 10 commandments can't even name one or two... moreover, the big ones are basic in all civilizations ... even before Christianity.... you really should check the sources linked. We even know a lot about the exact chemical pathways involved... the areas of the brain involved... how social behavior and cooperation emerges in many social groupings because the "winning strategy" is start with trust and then use tit-for-tat reciprocity in kind.... it's a built in rough plan for social kinship. A basic genomic game plan-- see "game theory". It maximizes the outcome for all "players". And read about mirror neurons. We feel the pain of others and the joy of others... we evolved to... it's why we love dramas... and the read about the VPN --a brain area which ties moral reasoning into these emotion centers... we know so much... we know that morality has nothing to do with religion or the 10 commandments... as long as humans have had language they have been organizing societies and codifying rules of social behavior --both in their religions and government... it's pretty much a more advanced and language based plan than our ape kin. Reciprocity lies at it's core-- and protection of our young and vulnerable mammals kin. It's why dogs will nurse kittens and so forth too. In-group enmity (an insurance policy) and protection from or eventual cooperation with "out groups"... trade is a great cooperation strategy for human societies and ecosystems in general

And oxytocin.. a strong social hormone. You too can read about it. There is no evidence that religion makes people behave more morally in any way. Instead, they do what others do, but they credit god and religion for their behavior or they use fear and promises to manipulate the behavior of others and their own morality in their own eyes. And how moral are the people who are supposedly refraining from killing because they fear hell or think god is going to give them presents?

This isn't rocket science either. You are perpetuating a stereotype that has no basis in reality. Atheism is nothing more or less than a lack of belief in gods.... in is no more a moral code than a lack of belief in demons or disbelief in astrology or anything else. It's a nothing. You refuse to see it. Atheists do not show lesser morality than their theistic peers... in fact, by many measures they show greater morality and social health. I linked studies and many others mention them but they go in your biased head without leaving a trace. You imagine those who disagree with you are being mean while ignoring your own very belligerent obnoxious and bigoted behavior towards multiple forum members. You refuse to acknowledge another point of view and regularly accuse others of behavior and logical flaws that are more obvious in your communications.

Theists don't share a code of morals and values. Humans share a general code... we help other humans... and they help us when we are in need... and we don't do things to them or their loved ones that we wouldn't want done to us or our loved ones. That's it. That's the moral code we've all evolved... and culture and religion just fine tunes it, or messes it up or takes credit for it or codifies it. Our morality evolves as we are able to put ourselves in others' shoes-- we become more moral as we can feel for others less like us.... religion makes some people able to fear and kill those "not like them" rather than encouraging the empathy that can naturally develop when not shackled by divisive tribalism and the like. Boot camps aim to do the same. You can treat those you see as less than human in all kinds of bigoted nasty ways that you wouldn't want to be treated without having to worry about guilt. Religion often encourages exactly that divisiveness for it's own survival and growth.

If secular societies would lead to immorality why is societal health so very strongly associated with the most secular societies in the world and the most Secular places in the United States. http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html

You are propping up a bigoted lie about faith being good and atheism leading to chaos. You ought to be ashamed of yourself or at least willing to educate yourself so you don't come across as a bigoted victim who feels sorry for himself while flinging strawman and ad homs and crying about receiving the same. You are ridiculous. You spread prejudice. What you are saying isn't rocket science at all-- it's plain old red neck faith based holier than thou bigotry. You are much ruder to skeptic girl than I have ever seen her be to anyone. Your claims have no basis in evidence. Whoever put the little bigoted notion in your head did you a disservice as well as the atheists in your life. You fear the wrong people. Fear the person who gave you that ridiculous meme and those who spread it as though they are doing something good and noble. Fear those who made it so hard for you to see your own bias which others are trying to illustrate for you repeatedly.

Thank goodness for secularism because there is a world of religious nutters just as sure as their nuttery as you are but they sure don't agree with each other on who the bad guys are and what is and isn't moral. Like you, they see those who don't share their opinions and beliefs as "the bad guys".

[Dogdoctor]

Wow...talk about an entirely illogical and inconsistent argument.

Okay, once again. Tell me one single moral teaching or belief that all theists hold in common!!! You can't do it, because no such belief exists.

Yes, "theists" have moral beliefs. But they are not consistent. They are not universal. In fact, there are just as many divisions among theistic beliefs (in fact, there are probably more) than there are among atheists.

And once again, I have given an example of an atheistic belief system that has very clearly defined moral and ethical beliefs. Humanism. But you entirely ignore that.

I have to admit, I'm leaning more and more towards skeptigirl's disdain for your arguments; you make general assertions of 'truth', yet beyond very vague and general claims, do nothing to support those claims whatsoever.

You made the claim. Now support it. Give me an example of ANY moral or ethical belief that is shared in common by all theists, or that is an implicit/inescapable conclusion from being a theist. And don't say, "They all believe in god", that is not a moral belief or position.

Not individually shared but as a group shared by similar religions. There are lots of things such as you as an individual shouldn't kill people. Also you shouldn't cheat or steal or lie. I never said I had proof only that the opposite was not proven either. Humanism is not atheism. Are you claiming humanism is atheism? Humanism is humanism, it is a belief system.

[Dogdoctor]

Most people who say they believe or follow the 10 commandments can't even name one or two... moreover, the big ones are basic in all civilizations ... even before Christianity.... you really should check the sources linked. We even know a lot about the exact chemical pathways involved... the areas of the brain involved... how social behavior and cooperation emerges in many social groupings because the "winning strategy" is start kind and that tit for tat reciprocity in kind.... it's a built in rough plan for social kinship. And mirror neurons. We feel the pain of others and the joy of others... we evolved to... it's why we love dramas... and the VPN a brain area which ties moral reasoning into these emotion centers... we know so much... we know that morality has nothing to do with religion or the 10 commandments... as long as humans have had language they have been organizing societies and codifying rules of social behavior --both in their religions and government... it's pretty much a more advanced and language based plan than our ape kin. Reciprocity lies at it's core-- and protection of our young and vulnerable mammals kin. It's why dogs will nurse kittens and so forth too.

And oxytocin.. a strong social hormone. You too can read about it. There is no evidence that religion makes people behave more morally in any way. Instead, they do what others do, but they credit god and religion for their behavior or they use fear and promises to manipulate the behavior of others and their own morality in their own eyes.

This isn't rocket science either. You are perpetuating a stereotype that has no basis in reality. Atheism is nothing more or less than a lack of belief in gods.... in is no more a moral code than a lack of belief in demons or astrology or anything else. It's a nothing. You refuse to see it. Atheists do not show lesser morality than their theistic peers... in fact, by many measures they show greater morality and social health. I linked studies and many others mention them but they go in your biased head without leaving a trace. You imagine those who disagree with you are being mean while ignoring your very belligerant obnoxious and bigoted behavior towards multiple forum members. You refuse to acknowledge another point of view and regularly accuse others of behavior and logical flaws that are more obvious in your communications.

Theists don't share a code of morals and values. Humans share a general code... we help other humans... and they help us when we are in need... and we don't do things to them or their loved ones that we wouldn't want done to us or our loved ones. That's it. That's the moral code we've all evolved... and culture and religion just fine tunes it, or messes it up or takes credit for it or codifies it. Our morality evolves as we are able to put ourselves in others' shoes-- we become more moral as we can feel for others less like us.... religion makes some people able to fear kill those "not like them" rather than encouraging the empathy that can naturally develop when not shackled by divisive tribalism and the like.

If secular societies would lead to immorality why is societal health so very strongly associated with the most secular societies in the world and the most Secular places in the United States. http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html

You are propping up a bigoted lie about faith being good and atheism leading to chaos. You ought to be ashamed of yourself or at least willing to educate yourself so you don't come across as a bigoted victim who feels sorry for himself while flinging strawman and ad homs and crying about receiving the same. You are ridiculous. You spread prejudice. What you are saying isn't rocket science at all-- it's plain old red neck faith based holier than thou bigotry. It has no basis in evidence. Whoever put the little bigoted notion in your head did you a disservice as well as the atheists in your life. You fear the wrong people. Fear the person who gave you that ridiculous meme and those who spread it as though they are doing something good and noble.

If you can learn to post without making it personal I will connsider answering you. I won't hold my breath

[Wolfman]

Not individually shared but as a group shared by similar religions. There are lots of things such as you as an individual shouldn't kill people. Also you shouldn't cheat or steal or lie. I never said I had proof only that the opposite was not proven either. Humanism is not atheism. Are you claiming humanism is atheism? Humanism is humanism, it is a belief system.dogdoctor:

A) There are plenty of "theists" who believe that it is perfectly acceptable to kill other individuals. Hell, think of all the numerous religions that have practiced human sacrifice. Baby sacrifice. Or how about killing and eating other humans so that you can absorb their power?

B) By the same token, there are plenty of theists who believe that stealing, lying, or cheating would be perfectly justified; various occult religions, for example (Satanist, demon-worship, etc.) would consider these things not only acceptable, but in some cases desirable.

C) I am claiming that Humanism is an atheist belief system.

D) Are you claim that Christianity is theism? It isn't...it is a theistic belief system. But the teachings of that single theistic belief system do not in any manner, shape, or form represent the teachings all all theistic belief systems.

So, once again. Your claim is that "theism" (that is, theism as a whole, not any individual theistic group) provides some sort of consistent moral guideline. So give me one single moral belief that is held in common by all theists!

And the moment that you exclude certain theists (as you must do in order to have your argument make any sense whatsoever), then you are just saying that "certain groups of theists provide consistent moral guidelines". Which is exactly the same in regards to atheism -- that certain groups of atheists provide consistent moral guidelines.

[The Atheist]

... that ridiculous meme ...

Even in amongst 1000 words of dross, the gems shine like stars on a clear night in Antarctica.

No faith....

:dl:

[The Atheist]

-- that certain groups of atheists provide consistent moral guidelines.

Which groups are these?

[articulett]

If you can learn to post without making it personal I will connsider answering you. I won't hold my breath

Of course... because you are never personal...

I notice that when it isn't personal, you call it a straw man and move the goal posts and pretend that someone other than you is following your line of reasoning.

If you had absorbed some sort of bias and didn't know it... how do you expect you'd learn? Or do you think you'd "know" the way religious people "know" the 10 commandments and how to be moral? Where are all these people made moral by religion? How can Randi and Sagan and Dawkins and so many of our forum members be so very moral without it?

[Skeptic Ginger]

... Atheism has no beliefs only the lack of belief. As if there are only god beliefs instructing us in right and wrong and nothing else. Amazing.

.. Ok so theism has similar problems however unlike atheists, religions have a core of values and morals that are shared with other similar religions. Atheist values and morality are hilly willy all over the place and atheists don't share a core of values and morals.

eta
Ok not exactly that they don't have shared values and morals which they may have associated with living in communities where religion has existed. But that once removed from the constraints of such a society those values would fade away into chaos with time.Since you won't read the actual evidence and you prefer to just make up the world as you go, perhaps I'll spoon feed you a little.

From a book review in the NYTimes of the book, "An Evolutionary Theory of Right and Wrong": (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/health/psychology/31book.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)Who doesn’t know the difference between right and wrong? Yet that essential knowledge, generally assumed to come from parental teaching or religious or legal instruction, could turn out to have a quite different origin....

The proposal, if true, would have far-reaching consequences. It implies that parents and teachers are not teaching children the rules of correct behavior from scratch but are, at best, giving shape to an innate behavior. And it suggests that religions are not the source of moral codes but, rather, social enforcers of instinctive moral behavior.

Both atheists and people belonging to a wide range of faiths make the same moral judgments, Dr. Hauser writes, implying “that the system that unconsciously generates moral judgments is immune to religious doctrine....

The moral grammar too, in Dr. Hauser’s view, is a system for generating moral behavior and not a list of specific rules. It constrains human behavior so tightly that many rules are in fact the same or very similar in every society — do as you would be done by; care for children and the weak; don’t kill; avoid adultery and incest; don’t cheat, steal or lie.

But it also allows for variations, since cultures can assign different weights to the elements of the grammar’s calculations. Thus one society may ban abortion, another may see infanticide as a moral duty in certain circumstances. ...

Some of [the evidence] comes from psychological tests of children, showing that they have an innate sense of fairness that starts to unfold at age 4....

Many people cannot articulate the foreseen/intended distinction, [in the trolley moral dilemma] Dr. Hauser says, a sign that it is being made at inaccessible levels of the mind. This inability challenges the general belief that moral behavior is learned. For if people cannot articulate the foreseen/intended distinction, how can they teach it?...

Social animals, he believes, possess the rudiments of a moral system in that they can recognize cheating or deviations from expected behavior. But they generally lack the psychological mechanisms on which the pervasive reciprocity of human society is based, like the ability to remember bad behavior, quantify its costs, recall prior interactions with an individual and punish offenders. “Lions cooperate on the hunt, but there is no punishment for laggards,” Dr. Hauser said.



And from the book, "The Innate Mind, Structure and Contents": (http://books.google.com/books?id=z4uDxCZemD4C&pg=PA365&lpg=PA365&dq=children+moral+innate&source=web&ots=DuKnXKaP16&sig=I07DmAy3ES56HIJBz4Z2VSoQ3Ys&hl=en)According to Dwyer. "the fundamental mistake" of empiricists accounts like social learning theory is "the assumption that all the information the child needs to achieve moral maturity is available in her environment. Absent a detailed account of how children extrapolate distinctly moral rules from the barrage of parental imperatives and evaluations, the appeal to explicit moral instruction will not provide anything like a satisfactory explanation of the emergence of mature moral competence. What we have here is a set of complex, articulated abilities that emerge over time in an environment that is impoverished with respect to the content and scope of their mature manifestations, and appear to develop naturally across the species"



Let me summarize that for you using an example I read elsewhere. If you take a young child in a classroom that has a rule, "no eating in class", and you tell the child that you are going to change this rule. Now it is OK to eat in class, the child has no problem changing the rule.

Now take that same child who also knows there is a rule, "you do not hit other children". Now tell that child you are going to change the rule and it is now OK to hit another child. Most children will not feel OK changing that rule. It does not matter if they have religion or if they have religious parents or how the concept of not hitting others was formally taught to them or never formally taught to them. Most kids make a clear distinction between arbitrary rules such as eating in a class and moral rules such as not harming another person.

God and religion don't have squat to do with this phenomena.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wow...talk about an entirely illogical and inconsistent argument.....Think maybe I was right about Dd afterall yet? ;)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not even slightly. I thought you were trying to make a statement on animal morality, and therefore figured it must be the other one as the one you show doesn't support your case at all.



Coming from someone using a trained monkey* and a single and ambiguous anecdote about dolphins, that's a bold statement.



Do you ever make sense? To someone other than yourself, that is? What does that have to do with any of this discussion?

*yes, I do know it's an apeThe insanity in this irrational argument mimics troll behavior.

[Wolfman]

Which groups are these?Humanism. To whit: this (http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.php), and this (http://www.iheu.org/amsterdamdeclaration). Clearly described and delineated moral and ethical guidelines, that are entirely independent of any supernatural source, guidance, or enforcement.

[articulett]

What happened to theism and Hitler's morals. The Nazi's were theists... can we blame that on theism the way you blame all evils on atheism?

Atheism is not a belief system. It's not a belief system. It's just a lack of belief in any gods.

Secularism, Humanism, naturalism, rationalism, materialism, skepticism-- those are belief systems.... philosophies often associated with atheism... but they aren't the same. Atheism is a small circle with that intersects the Venn diagrams of these bigger circles or philosophies... but there is no complete overlap. And we can't even agree if North Korea is theistic... are Greek Myth believers? Where is the evidence that people who believe in invisible overlords have any ANY edge on morality. Yes, we know they all think so-- that's why they praise Jesus and talk about their faith and tell everyone how "god fearing" they are-- but where is the evidence? The evidence just isn't there. At best, we can say that many people are good despite their religion and the barbaric teachings in their "good books".

[Skeptic Ginger]

The idea morality originates in religious beliefs is so absurd I can't believe Dd and TA are actually trying to support this position.

Does that mean if you don't fear hell and God's wrath then you have no reason not to rape pillage and murder?

[articulett]

Humanism. To whit: this (http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.php), and this (http://www.iheu.org/amsterdamdeclaration). Clearly described and delineated moral and ethical guidelines, that are entirely independent of any supernatural source, guidance, or enforcement.

And the purposefully secular constitution of the United States.

Is there any measure of morality-- murder, warmongering, torture, oppression, divorce, care of the poor, charity without proselytizing, etc. where having a theistic belief system shows advantage over non theism? Theists in the US have higher divorce rates, teen pregnancy rates, abortion rates, homicide rates, and they are over represented in the prisons compared the the general population, and the best indicator of amount of crime in an area is the number of churches in the area. It doesn't seem to have the moralizing affect that it promises. I think that poor people are more likely to have churches for social support... as are lesser educated people... I don't think religion causes the crime... but by any standard of measurable morality, it sure doesn't seem to prevent it-- or make anyone more moral in any measurable way. Of course, the religious people might all be murders, thiefs, rapists, and pillagers without religion and the fear of god... but that makes them IMMORAL not the law abiding non believer of which many if not most of this forum membership fall into I suspect.

[Complexity]

I don't think that Dogdoctor (pity the dogs) understands very much about people or other animals, let alone morality.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I want to say that you make sense to me... and a lot of people... I have long had TA on ignore and I don't think anyone but himself finds any of his arguments valid or useful. Some say he can be amusing or kind at times. I figure he'll appear in someone else's posts should that happen. So far, I haven't seen the evidence. Well maybe once or twice... but I have never regretted having him on ignore and I know multiple members who feel similarly.There are a number of people who argue from such positions of ignorance it is difficult to respond. If someone truly doesn't know something, there is nothing wrong with that and I hope I have more patience with them. But when people just rant that you are wrong without ever addressing one iota of evidence you have presented, it is mind boggling just who it is they believe they are convincing with their declarations of fact from a world of ignorance.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
It's amazing... my dog doesn't kill and she's never read the 10 commandmants. Imagine that. She's never been a bigot either... she would even lick a bigot with fond kisses unless he tried to harm me.My dogs think it's OK to kill bunnies. But they know it isn't OK to bite people. :D

[articulett]

There are a number of people who argue from such positions of ignorance it is difficult to respond. If someone truly doesn't know something, there is nothing wrong with that and I hope I have more patience with them. But when people just rant that you are wrong without ever addressing one iota of evidence you have presented, it is mind boggling just who it is they believe they are convincing with their declarations of fact from a world of ignorance.

There are a number of people that I put on my list of those with

Pugilistic Discussion Syndrome

In this curious form of aphasia, the subject is unable to distinguish between a discussion and a contest. The subject approaches any online forum as a sort of playing field, and attempts to "win" the discussion by any means necessary. The rules of the imaginary contest are apparently clear to the individual as he or she will often point out when others break them, but when asked to outline these rules the individual is reluctant, perhaps not wishing to confer an "advantage" on any "opponents." The conditions for winning are similarly difficult to pin down, although in some cases the individual will declare himself the winner of a discussion that, to all others, appears to be ongoing.


They are assorted apologists and vigilantes who are always being nasty to me and other posters I like while claiming themselves the victims. I can never follow their points. I figure as long as they have enemies amongst the people I admire, I must be doing something right. I suspect that they are demonizing others to avoid the message or belief they want to protect. In this case, they don't want to believe hey are being biased and bigoted... they want to believe it's you and me and those "fundamentalist atheists" and so forth... that atheists deserve this scorn and prejudice... rather than examine whether they are perpetuating a bias and bigotry inflicted upon them by the religious institutions they are ever ready to protect and defend.


For some reason, they feel personally offended when anyone says anything bad about religion and they hear all kinds of things never said in order to demonize the message bearer rather than to actually hear the message.


I'd take their nastiness as a sign that you've pushed some buttons on some belief they don't want to have to look at. :)


I can't imagine any other reason for their "pugilistic discussion behavior"... and their stunning ability to imagine fault in others that is glaring in themselves.

Dogphysician, heal thyself ;)

[articulett]

My dogs think it's OK to kill bunnies. But they know it isn't OK to bite people. :D

I think my dogs might accidentally kill a bunny... they get a little curious with the cats... and they are bigger... except for the chihuahua-- but they seem to be trying to play, and the cats find the dogs boorish as a whole. The dog tosses the toys in the air with their mouths to invite play... every cat knows that is totally wrong. You are supposed to bat it in the air with your paw or stand over it and flick it into the air. Plus mouse play is a solitary activity. Jeez.

[The Atheist]

Humanism.

Yes, I figured you'd say that.

The idea morality originates in religious beliefs is so absurd I can't believe Dd and TA are actually trying to support this position.

Look, thanks for proving every point I've been trying to make about athiest idiots who believe any old rubbish.

Please find where I have ever made a statement to the effect that morality originates in religious beliefs. I have, in fact said exactly the opposite. Please retract your baseless and incorrect assertion.

[A Christian Sceptic]

He certainly isn't a very good atheist.


Is Atheism a discipline?

[articulett]

Is Atheism a discipline?

Nope... just a lack of belief in dieties.

Just like skepticism is generally seen as a disbelief in he supernatural and claims not backed by evidence.

Suppose you are an a-astrologist... you didn't believe in astrology... but you went around defending the practice and berating anyone who pointed out it was fraud or had no basis in science etc.

Then you would be a bad a-astrologist. See?

If you are a non-stamp collector but you tell other people they should collect stamps and never malign stamp collecting and think that stamp collecting is necessary for something positive in society... then you would be a bad "non-stamp collector"... one would wonder why you would label yourself as such.

Most people who call themselves atheists don't see The Atheist as representative of their own atheism or any atheists they know. Moreover, most of us have heard people who claim to be atheists or claim to have been atheists but not of any type that we recognize when we use that to reference ourselves. It's not usually a label people give themselves without a lot of thought in the matter... so we are "skeptical" of their claims.

It's kind of how like Christians point out people who aren't real Christians... how they might say Hitler was a "bad christian" or a "bad theist" or "bad representative of theism".

[Dogdoctor]

dogdoctor:

A) There are plenty of "theists" who believe that it is perfectly acceptable to kill other individuals. Hell, think of all the numerous religions that have practiced human sacrifice. Baby sacrifice. Or how about killing and eating other humans so that you can absorb their power?
Your opinion verses mine. The way that morality works is that we hold these ideas but fail to live up to them sometimes. Obviously most people aren't running around killing each other


B) By the same token, there are plenty of theists who believe that stealing, lying, or cheating would be perfectly justified; various occult religions, for example (Satanist, demon-worship, etc.) would consider these things not only acceptable, but in some cases desirable.
People aren't perfect.

C) I am claiming that Humanism is an atheist belief system.
What you are talking about is secular humanism. Not all atheists or perhaps not even close to all atheists hold this belief system to be valid.

D) Are you claim that Christianity is theism? It isn't...it is a theistic belief system. But the teachings of that single theistic belief system do not in any manner, shape, or form represent the teachings all all theistic belief systems.

Christianity is composed of many religions that vary in beliefs but overall they share certain values and morals. I am not sure of this point could you explain it differently?
So, once again. Your claim is that "theism" (that is, theism as a whole, not any individual theistic group) provides some sort of consistent moral guideline. So give me one single moral belief that is held in common by all theists!
Well Christian religions provide a set of morals and values shared by other Christian religions. Muslims do also but these are not consistent with Christian values and morals. Still they provide a set of values and morals.

And the moment that you exclude certain theists (as you must do in order to have your argument make any sense whatsoever), then you are just saying that "certain groups of theists provide consistent moral guidelines". Which is exactly the same in regards to atheism -- that certain groups of atheists provide consistent moral guidelines.
OK I see certain groups of atheists provide the same thing in the form of humanism. What percentage of atheists are secular humanists?
Judging from this forum ,very few.

[Dogdoctor]

As if there are only god beliefs instructing us in right and wrong and nothing else. Amazing.

Since you won't read the actual evidence and you prefer to just make up the world as you go, perhaps I'll spoon feed you a little.

From a book review in the NYTimes of the book, "An Evolutionary Theory of Right and Wrong": (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/health/psychology/31book.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)



And from the book, "The Innate Mind, Structure and Contents": (http://books.google.com/books?id=z4uDxCZemD4C&pg=PA365&lpg=PA365&dq=children+moral+innate&source=web&ots=DuKnXKaP16&sig=I07DmAy3ES56HIJBz4Z2VSoQ3Ys&hl=en)



Let me summarize that for you using an example I read elsewhere. If you take a young child in a classroom that has a rule, "no eating in class", and you tell the child that you are going to change this rule. Now it is OK to eat in class, the child has no problem changing the rule.

Now take that same child who also knows there is a rule, "you do not hit other children". Now tell that child you are going to change the rule and it is now OK to hit another child. Most children will not feel OK changing that rule. It does not matter if they have religion or if they have religious parents or how the concept of not hitting others was formally taught to them or never formally taught to them. Most kids make a clear distinction between arbitrary rules such as eating in a class and moral rules such as not harming another person.

God and religion don't have squat to do with this phenomena.

These are just appeals to authority. I can see why you want to believe them but why should I believe them? Are the people who wrote them infallible?

[articulett]

These are just appeals to authority. I can see why you want to believe them but why should I believe them? Are the people who wrote them infallible?

And what exactly are you appealing to when you come to your conclusion that has no evidence whatsoever that theism encourages morality and that lack of it leads to chaos?

I think the evidence is squarely against you and in skepticgirl's favor on this one. It's you who are proffering a belief without the support of evidence. It's well documented that morality has a bases in genetics, brain chemistry and brain structures. We evolved to be programmed by our environment. The majority of the people on this forum manage to behave morally without the threat of hell or anything of the sort. You've made no case for religion or theism being the basis for any kind of morality whatsoever. None. No one but theists and apologists indoctrinated to believe that support your position. And they do so on faith. Not evidence like multiple people here have provided. You have provided none for your assertions. None. You pulled them out of your ass and said "it's not rocketscience". It sure isn't. It's a faith based piece of bigotry.

[Walter Wayne]

Dog Doctor, I agree with several points in your OP, particularly that for some religion may be needed, but not for others.

But when you say "if we were able to remove all the theists in the world their would be chaos" I have to disagree with you. If you remove the theism, you don't think a new social institution would replace it?

Maybe a quilting club, where they sit around discussing morality, gossiping about those who don't follow the code and forming "in-groups" and "out-groups" based around people of similar backgrounds/morality.
Religion is, as far as I can tell, about forming a sense of community and providing stable ethic of sorts (kind of a filter so that "morality" doesn't flip-flop faster than a politician at election time). I can't see why another institution couldn't takes its place without the trappings of myth surrounding it.

Walt

[articulett]

BTW, I consider myself a secular humanist, DD, and far more moral and less bigoted than you.

You made an assertion that religion somehow makes people more moral or theism serves as the basis of some morality. If this were the case we should see theistic societies or groups of people or believers measurably more moral on some measure... and non-believers measurably less so. So where is this evidence.

If morality evolves... we should expect to see pretty much what we do see... brain damage influencing it... similar behavior in other animals particularly apes... common brain pathways and hormones involved in it... mirror neurons playing a role... lots of studies amassing data in the area... studies showing that secular societies are healthy... and lo' that is exactly what we see. Maybe you need religion and fear of god to keep you from committing whatever of the commandments you imagine keep you in line... but the rest of humanity through the eons seem to do just fine without it... so do our ape kin...even bees and ants have a tit for tat genetic algorithm that encourages in-group cooperation.

So what is your evidence for your claims again... the claim about theism making people more moral and civilized in some way and atheism leading to chaos? I think the world would be very civilized indeed if more people were like James Randi, Carl Sagan, and the many fine atheists on this forum... and very scary if folks like DOC and the self important people sure that they are getting messages from beyond had their way. Atheists don't pretend to know what god wants for you. Theists are sure they do know--and they don't agree with each other.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Dd, do you even know what appeal to authority is? Because it appears you don't.

[plumjam]

But when you say "if we were able to remove all the theists in the world their would be chaos" I have to disagree with you. If you remove the theism, you don't think a new social institution would replace it?


Yes, I agree with you on this.
People here usually like to stick to the evidence (or at least say they do). The evidence from history supports your point. Hence the Communist Parties of the Soviet Union and China. The Khmer Rouge. The Jacobins of the post French-Revolution Reign of Terror.
Sure, it probably is not inevitable that something like the above would happen in the future. But, really, why risk it?

It's like if a few neighbours of mine knock down some internal walls in their houses, and their houses collapse. If I knock down a few walls in my house it might collapse too, it might not. I prefer to learn the lesson and not to risk it.

[Dogdoctor]

Dd, do you even know what appeal to authority is? Because it appears you don't.

It's obvious that you don't or you would quit making the same mistake over and over again.

[The Atheist]

Is Atheism a discipline?

Haha! I beat you to that one.

But when you say "if we were able to remove all the theists in the world their would be chaos" I have to disagree with you. If you remove the theism, you don't think a new social institution would replace it?

Isn't that just the $64,000 question? If god were to disappear overnight (not that that's going to happen) what would actually happen? I suspect a lot of people would wake up tomorrow and be; A) very sad, and later, once it had sunk in, B) very pissed off.

I can't see why another institution couldn't takes its place without the trappings of myth surrounding it.

Walt

Funny though, that the fastest-growing BS in the world today is "new age" practices - psychics, tarot and the like. In most societies, those groups have grown at the expense of religion. Which is worse?

[Darat]

To all participants - drop your personal issues with other Members and simply address the arguments and opinions expressed. If you can't do this then do not respond.

[Darat]

DogDoctor - since you are rejecting scientific research into morality as evidence what evidence would you require to change your mind?

[Dogdoctor]

DogDoctor - since you are rejecting scientific research into morality as evidence what evidence would you require to change your mind?
Scientific evidence. What was posted was an opinion.

[Darat]

Scientific evidence. What was posted was an opinion.


OK - so can you point to the scientific evidence that you used to form your conclusions in this thread?

[A Christian Sceptic]

It's kind of how like Christians point out people who aren't real Christians... how they might say Hitler was a "bad christian" or a "bad theist" or "bad representative of theism".

I don't think it's like that at all. Christianity, and well, all belief systems have certain beliefs. It's rather easy to point out people who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. It appears to be one the most popular past times around here. :) But atheists have no beleifs except one - that an atheist doesn't believe in any god or gods. They don't have to have the same reasons for not believing - they just need the same conclusion. I don't really know how someone can be a bad representation of atheism - atheism shouldn't be standing for anything more then the simple conclusion. The closest I can think of is if someone believes in God but says they don't. From the way you're making it sound - atheism is some people's religion. :D

[Irony]

If you can learn to post without making it personal I will connsider answering you. I won't hold my breath

You say not to attack you personally, and yet call every single attack on your argument a personal attack. How exactly are we supposed to debate you then?

Furthermore, it is flat-out hypocritical to chastize us for saying things that you can twist into being personal attacks while you have done nothing but talk about how atheists are immoral, and how if everyone were atheists we would descend into some sort of anarchy. Did you even once consider the fact that such ridiculous portrayals of a large group of people as some sort of inhuman monsters might be considered by members of that group as a personal attack? Did you even consider for one solitary second that perhaps atheists might have moral codes that are unrelated to either religion or atheism?

Did you even consider for one second that we might be human?

Evidently not.

I'm sorry, but I can no longer continue this discussion. You are a bigot. You are a hate-monger. If you want to call that a personal attack, fine. I would advise you to actually read over your previous posts and try to undersand why we might feel the way we do, but I know you won't. Just as Jack Chick will never try to understand Jews, and Bill O'Reilly will never try to understand black people, you will never try to understand atheists. It might, after all, ruin your whole stereotype and not allow you to accuse us of being immoral, inhuman monsters any more.

I have dealt with a lot of small minded people on here, but you are the first, and quite possible the only, to make my ignore list. Goodbye.

[plumjam]

I haven't read all of this thread, but most of it. Can anyone explain to me what it was that was so bad that DogDoctor dared to say?

[A Christian Sceptic]

I haven't read all of this thread, but most of it. Can anyone explain to me what it was that was so bad that DogDoctor dared to say?

Hey PlumJam - Here's my take. DogDoctor said that Religions provide society with something useful - a moral structure for society. Atheism doesn't provide anything because it is simply not believing in God or Gods. Each Atheist is then left with coming up with their own morality however they can (instead of starting within a religious framework as the foundation.) Because of this, he concludes there would be anarchy if there were only atheists because there would be no complete agreement on morals, etc.

I can predict the future. But be forewarned. If you click the following you'll be changing the future and possibly stopping my prediction from coming true! :)

Any moment someone is going to post a variation of the following:
"DogDoctor, how's it make you feel that the only person here who understands what you are saying and / or agrees with you is A Christian Sceptic? Who we all know is a ..."

Sorry in advance, DogDoctor.

[articulett]

Marc Hauser's research showing similarity in morality despite religious upbringing and all the brain studies are "opinions"?? How in the world could one prove that morality was inborn in a better more thorough way? And the evidence keeps amassing! I would think that skepticgirl's post along with the study showing very strongly that secular societies have greater social health --would be compelling evidence for anyone seriously interested in whether religion helps make people moral or whether atheists are more immoral because of their lack of religion-- .

Of course, if someone just wants to "believe" that religion is responsible for morality and that atheists can't be mora, I suppose that no amount of evidence could change their mind. You have to want the truth before you can get it. You have to understand your biases before you can change them. You have to check yourself and your own arguments for the faults you are noticing in others if you don't want to be perceived as a hypocrite.

[mijopaalmc]

OK, I think that it is worth saying this about research into the evolutionary origins of morality: it may tell why in general morality evolved (e.g., to "codify" otherwise inexpressible genetic imperative toward, inter alia, altruism) but it may never tell us in particular what is moral (e.g., why we no longer own slaves).

[Skeptic Ginger]

I haven't read all of this thread, but most of it. Can anyone explain to me what it was that was so bad that DogDoctor dared to say?Well for starters All morality comes from theism. Without god beliefs one is amoral or is only moral because they learned morality from theists. All the evidence I posted wasn't evidence. It was evidence but not proof. There are no legitimate reasons to promote atheism. Anyone promoting atheism is a fundamentalist atheist blindly being dogmatic about atheism.

[mijopaalmc]

Well for starters All morality comes from theism. Without god beliefs one is amoral or is only moral because they learned morality from theists. All the evidence I posted wasn't evidence. It was evidence but not proof. There are no legitimate reasons to promote atheism. Anyone promoting atheism is a fundamentalist atheist blindly being dogmatic about atheism.

I see you went to the straw man sale.

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK, I think that it is worth saying this about research into the evolutionary origins of morality: it may tell why in general morality evolved (e.g., to "codify" otherwise inexpressible genetic imperative toward, inter alia, altruism) but it may never tell us in particular what is moral (e.g., why we no longer own slaves).In order to make this claim you have to substitute something else in place of evolutionary biology as the source of moral decisions.

The evidence just doesn't support moral beliefs coming from religious beliefs. So other than a magical source, what's your hypothesis?

[mijopaalmc]

In order to make this claim you have to substitute something else in place of evolutionary biology as the source of moral decisions.

The evidence just doesn't support moral beliefs coming from religious beliefs. So other than a magical source, what's your hypothesis?

It's really hard to have an honest discussion with you when you insist in resorting to straw men. I never implied (nor did Dogdoctor for that, for that matter) that religion is a prerequisite for morality; I merely stated that understanding how and why morality evolved does not necessarily tell us anything about what is moral. In fact, I think this is most obviously borne out in the fact that, within last 310 years the idea of the equality of humanity has extended far beyond what the original Enlightenment philosopher supposedly meant to include all of humanity and not just white, male, heterosexual, landowners of the legal age of majority (which in turn, among other things, made slavery immoral).

Has there been a corresponding change in human biology?

[articulett]

Yes the premise is full of strawmen that have never been substantiated and that appear to be taken on faith by many believers and apologists.

Namely that religion helps make people more moral or fosters morality or good behavior. If this was true, then we should see more altruism--such as blood donation, organ donation etc. (giving without expectation of anything in return)--amongst believers. Instead we see that nonbelievers are overly represented in such areas. Moreover, Hauser studies show that the very basis of morality has no relationship to religion or religious upbringing--but rather to empathy-- an inborn trait.

The second strawman is that atheists want to abolish religion or think religion is evil or that if every one were atheists that there would be chaos and immorality galore. Again the evidence belies this. Belief in god or fear of hell does not encourage more moral behavior. If it did, we wouldn't need laws, and there wouldn't be so many problems with pedophilia and sexual misconduct amongst the clergy. We don't need religion not to kill people and it doesn't work in preventing men from killing other men anyhow--in fact, it's often an excuse for such-- it also can be used as to justify slavery, sexism, torture, burning of "witches" and all many or incivility because it's all there in the assorted scriptures that are supposed to be a "moral code".

The underlying premise is that without religion, all these religious people would be committing mayhem. It speaks very poorly for their own morality... this idea that they are "good" because they imagine they'll be rewarded and that they refrain from doing bad because "god is watching". Are religionists really such infants. Are they really going to go out and wreak havoc if they lost their faith. If so, then by all means, we atheists hope they keep their god. But I'm pretty damn sure that's another one of those lies proffered by religion. There's lots of reasons to do good and refrain from harming others--we are wired to be social creatures--to have a conscience.... and there are laws and social shunning for those who don't comply.

So other than these strawman which have long been addressed and only propped up by faith which is a piss poor way to know anything... is there any actual evidence which suggest that religion helps people more moral (and by what measurements and whose morality)-- and that horrific things would happen if people stopped using faith as a means of "knowing" how to behave?

So far, there has been none. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Many if no most people who consider themselves athiests support a rationalistic and/or humanistic world views. Like all believers they think the world would be better if more people shared their view... but atheists understand that their freedom to not believe relies on freedom of all beliefs-- including lack of one. Secularism is about ensuring that none of these philosophies is favored over any other... that no one's invisible guy in the sky is making the rules for the real concrete existent human beings on this planet.

Not believing in religion or finding it woo-ish is not the same as thinking it should be stamped out. I think dowsing is woo-ish too... I think it's wrong to abuse the trust of people... I'm sure it's harmless or has done some good. I feel the same way about religion. I see no evidence that religion or faith makes anyone behave more morally except in their own heads. Moreover, I think it's wrong that faiths spread lies and bigotry about those who don't or can't believe the woo they proffer as "divine truth" or a "moral guide" or whatever. Plus, the woo sure as hell don't agree with each other. They all think that believers of their own brand of woo are the most moral and best to inflict upon others.

[articulett]

Where are the people made fabulous by faith and the people who are hurting others because they lack it? I sure don't see evidence of either on this forum. I don't see evidence of it in he real world. Theists are way over represented in he world, but way under represented in the world of skeptics, scientists, and those who bring true and useful knowledge, education, and civilizing features to our world as far as I can tell.

[mijopaalmc]

Let me just repeat one more time:

Dogdoctor (I think) and I are not arguing that having no religion make people immoral.

Responding to our posts as if that is what we are saying is attacking a straw man.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's really hard to have an honest discussion with you when you insist in resorting to straw men. I never implied (nor did Dogdoctor for that, for that matter) that religion is a prerequisite for morality; So other than a magical source, what's your hypothesis? Where in that question do you find a conclusion about your views on where morals originate from?

I asked you. That implies I don't know what your belief is on this matter. Please consider taking your false accusation back.

I merely stated that understanding how and why morality evolved does not necessarily tell us anything about what is moral. In fact, I think this is most obviously borne out in the fact that, within last 310 years the idea of the equality of humanity has extended far beyond what the original Enlightenment philosopher supposedly meant to include all of humanity and not just white, male, heterosexual, landowners of the legal age of majority (which in turn, among other things, made slavery immoral).I hear this argument often, but it doesn't wash. First, in making a moral decision, people are merely using unspoken criteria. Identify the criteria and the underlying mechanism of a moral decision becomes apparent.

Take the trolley moral dilemma. If one chooses to throw a switch which results in killing one person rather than 5 people, most people will say, throw the switch. But when the same question involves killing one person in order to save 5 people (pushing someone on to the track) then most people will say no, they wouldn't. The same number of people live and die in the two options. But we make an unspoken or unconscious decision that weighs the act of active participation in a killing differently than an inactive participation of throwing a switch.

This is not something you can say is the result of god beliefs or religious teaching. Nor is it magical and inexplicable. It is the result of evolutionary biology. Just as the child recognizes innately that a rule against hitting someone is different than a rule against eating in the classroom.

Experimental evidence has shown one primate species reacted consistently to the perception of something being unfair.

Monkeys Show Sense Of Fairness, Study Says (http://www.primates.com/monkeys/fairness.html)Partners of capuchins who made the swap either received the same reward (a cucumber slice), or a better reward (a grape, a more desirable food), for the same amount of work or, in some cases, for performing no work at all.

Brosnan said the response to the unequal treatment was astonishing: Capuchins who witnessed unfair treatment and failed to benefit from it often refused to conduct future exchanges with human researchers, would not eat the cucumbers they received for their labors, and in some cases, hurled food rewards at human researchers.

Those actions were significant. They confirmed that not only did capuchins expect fair treatment, but that the human desire for equity has an evolutionary basis.

Another study with chimpanzees had a different result. If the chimp was to get nothing but the other chimp something, then the chimp in control wouldn't act. But if the split was 50|50, they acted. When the split was variable, then unfair or not the chimp would act.

That's Not Fair! (To a Chimp) (http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labnotes/archive/2007/10/04/that-s-not-fair-to-a-chimp.aspx)In a study being reported today in Science, researchers had 11 chimpanzees at the Wolfgang Köhler Primate Research Center in Germany play this “ultimatum” game. One chimp, the “proposer,” sat beside the “responder.” The proposer pulled out a tray as far as he could. The tray held two dishes with raisins, separated by a see-through divider: one for the proposer and the other for the responder. The proposers first chose which tray to pull out; if the responder liked what he saw—and he could see how many raisins he and the proposer would each get, by seeing how many raisins were on each side of the divider—he accepted the offer by pulling the tray the rest of the way out. Both chimps would then chow down. If the responder did not like the offer, he refused to pull the tray the rest of the way out, and neither chimp got a snack.

If the dishes held the same number of raisins, the responder chimp almost always accepted a 50-50 offer and rejected a 100-0 offer. Unlike people, though, they rarely rejected 80-20 offers—only 5 to 14 percent of the time. And unlike people, who fume when confronted with unfair offers, the chimps almost never took umbrage, throwing a tantrum at an unfair offer a mere 2 percent of the time.

There has long been a debate over whether chimps are able to sense fairness, much less tolerate unfairness. These results suggest that chimps behave “according to traditional economic models of self-interest, unlike humans, and that this species does not share the human sensitivity to fairness,” the scientists write.

But further research suggests that 'Chimpanzees Show Quality Of Relationship Drives Sense Of Fairness' (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050212191635.htm)By observing variability in chimpanzees' responses to inequity, Sarah Brosnan, PhD, and Frans de Waal, PhD, both researchers in Yerkes' Division of Psychobiology and the Yerkes-based Living Links Center, determined the chimpanzees' responses depended upon the strength of their social connections. This is the first demonstration that nonhuman primates' reactions to inequity parallel the variation in human responses to unfair situations based on the quality of the relationship.

This research shows that morality is not uniquely human, but that there are many factors involved. One can begin to trace the roots of morality through evolutionary biology and start to dissect how it evolved and what evolutionary selection pressures were involved.



Has there been a corresponding change in human biology?Language, which led to increasing complexity in group interactions and behavior. And advances in technology certainly would have had an effect. Both of these are evolutionary processes.

[Dogdoctor]

I see you went to the straw man sale.

Thanks for making that point which should be obvious to all skeptics and obviously not all atheists.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I see you went to the straw man sale.I could waste my time quoting the supporting posts of Dd's making these claims. Perhaps later I might. However, for now, let me just say, not only are these the points Dd has made, I challenge you to find where he has said something different.

Denying he has stated these positions is not valid. Find where he expressed an alternative position.

[Dogdoctor]

I could waste my time quoting the supporting posts of Dd's making these claims. Perhaps later I might. However, for now, let me just say, not only are these the points Dd has made, I challenge you to find where he has said something different.

Denying he has stated these positions is not valid. Find where he expressed an alternative position.

You are the one saying I said these things. Go find them , Oh wait you can't find them OH well

[mijopaalmc]

I could waste my time quoting the supporting posts of Dd's making these claims. Perhaps later I might. However, for now, let me just say, not only are these the points Dd has made, I challenge you to find where he has said something different.

Denying he has stated these positions is not valid. Find where he expressed an alternative position.

What is much more likely is that you are deliberately misinterpreting his statements. I have read most of his posts in this and other thread, and his position seems quite reasonable: moral constructs cannot be based on a lack of belief. In other words, it is perfectly possible for an atheist to be moral, but atheism and morality (or the lack thereof) do not bear any causal connection to each other. As you have done with me in the past, you are just regurgitating pat counterarguments without actually bothering to see if they bear any resemblance to what is actually is being argued.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes but humans know they have morals, do dolphins?Missed this one. Awareness of morality is not a criteria for having morals. I've never seen awareness included in any definition of morality. We have very little means of determining whether or not a chimp who has a sense of fairness is aware of that sense. There is no mirror we can hold up and see if they have awareness.

But you cannot rule it out either. And since there is a reaction to perceived fairness and unfairness in non-human primates, then the morality of fairness exists. Just labeling human morality different because we can have a conversation about it doesn't change the morality itself.

[The Atheist]

You are the one saying I said these things. Go find them , Oh wait you can't find them OH well

I do feel compelled to note that she also made a completely wrong accusation against me which I have asked for withdrawal of, but am still waiting for.

[mijopaalmc]

skeptigirl-

How the quick development in morality over the last 300 years that I mentioned above fit in with much slower-acting effects of genetic evolution?

[Mobyseven]

Thanks for making that point which should be obvious to all skeptics and obviously not all atheists.

Sorry, I must have missed the part where Skeptigirl misrepresented your position. Perhaps you could show us where she was wrong?

[mijopaalmc]

Sorry, I must have missed the part where Skeptigirl misrepresented your position. Perhaps you could show us where she was wrong?

The onus is on her since she made specific claims about what he was saying.

[thaiboxerken]

skeptigirl-

How the quick development in morality over the last 300 years that I mentioned above fit in with much slower-acting effects of genetic evolution?

What does this even mean? Can you post something lucid?

[thaiboxerken]

The onus is on her since she made specific claims about what he was saying.

Not really. She's summarized what DogDoctor has been saying over the course of a very lengthy thread. The onus is upon DogDoctor so simply clarify what he really means if he thinks she's misrepresented what he said. To simply say "strawman" does nothing for the dialog.

[mijopaalmc]

skeptigirl-

How the quick development in morality over the last 300 years that I mentioned above fit in with much slower-acting effects of genetic evolution?

What does this even mean? Can you post something lucid?

This just proves that you are not reading my posts, because I explained my position quite lucidly in this post:

[H]is position seems quite reasonable: moral constructs cannot be based on a lack of belief. In other words, it is perfectly possible for an atheist to be moral, but atheism and morality (or the lack thereof) do not bear any causal connection to each other.

And I am merely elaborating to this portion of the OP:

Atheists want to believe that atheism is better than religion yet studying history it doesn’t appear to be. Atheism is still uncommon in the world and religion has survived any attempts by atheists to eliminate it. Why is this? It’s because atheism doesn’t provide what is necessary for a society to survive (a social/moral structure). Atheists are not cohesive and all have their own ideas of what they think social structure or morality should be like. This is not conducive to building a society. It seems that religion is far superior to atheism for society in providing what people need to live. Religious freedom and tolerance is what makes the USA strong (not elimination of religion). Freedom seems to be an important factor in healthy societies. Repression of religion hasn’t ever worked.

[mijopaalmc]

Not really. She's summarized what DogDoctor has been saying over the course of a very lengthy thread. The onus is upon DogDoctor so simply clarify what he really means if he thinks she's misrepresented what he said. To simply say "strawman" does nothing for the dialog.

And when someone summarizes another's position, the onus is upon the summarizer to make sure that the summary is correct by providing corroborating evidence from what the person whom the summarizer is summarizing has said.

[Skeptic Ginger]

skeptigirl-

How the quick development in morality over the last 300 years that I mentioned above fit in with much slower-acting effects of genetic evolution?You are confusing the single aspect of individual biology in biological evolution with the entire process that encompasses group behavior as well.

Some try to make the argument that group survival cannot act as a natural selection for individual genes. If a person sacrifices oneself for the group, then that individual's genes will not be selected so how can the group's survival be a selection pressure?

Yet we see by the evidence that group survival is a selection factor. It means we need another hypothesis to explain what is happening.

It is not that complicated to understand. Group survival benefits the individual (in gregarious species) most of the time. That there might be infrequent times that evolved behaviors result in complete self sacrifice and not pass on that individual's genes does not preclude the rest of the time that behavior does improve the individual's survival and results as gene selection.

The evidence, of which I posted some, is pretty consistent. Kids have some innate morality. It is consistent across cultures. Animals exhibit these behaviors and we can observe the roots of human morality directly. We also have evidence that certain brain injuries grossly impact morality. Fetal alcohol syndrome, for example, increases the risk of sociopathic behavior.

That language and technology resulted in increasing complexity in moral beliefs and decisions does not take the process out of the evolutionary biology realm. It merely adds a layer of complexity above other animal groups.

Think about one's moral choices. Do you decide not to murder because you fear being caught or of God's wrath? Most people would not become a murderer regardless of consequences. In fact, soldiers have to first de-humanize the enemy in order to be able to kill. They don't merely need to believe it is OK in that situation. Self defense is another mechanism one can override the inhibition to murder. It is not an intellectual decision. And it isn't a magical one either.

Do you decide how to behave because someone taught you right from wrong? Then why do kids lie? Kids lie consistently as a self preservation mechanism. You can look in child development sources, I'm not going to dig them up for people. While some kids may learn that hitting and biting is OK or not OK and behave accordingly, even the best raised kids will lie. And if a young child does hit another but it elicits crying in the other, then most kids (not all) have an innate reaction of sensing that was wrong.

Anyway, it is complex, learning modifies moral behavior, but kids don't start with a blank slate.

And religion has little to nothing the do with the learning or even what society as a whole views as moral. I challenge you or Dd to even define the specific contribution religious beliefs have had in forming the human moral framework. That framework is based in evolutionary biology, not in religious text or even religious organization. It is based on the fact we evolved living in groups. God beliefs would be completely unnecessary for the formation of group rules.

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... moral constructs cannot be based on a lack of belief. In other words, it is perfectly possible for an atheist to be moral, but atheism and morality (or the lack thereof) do not bear any causal connection to each other. As you have done with me in the past, you are just regurgitating pat counterarguments without actually bothering to see if they bear any resemblance to what is actually is being argued.Moral constructs are actually based more in our ability to empathize than they are based in any kind of intellectual contemplation.