Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Mark wrote: "Do you not think religion is an outdated concept now? I mean, come on - a magic man in the clouds controls everything we do? I think not! Religion is a crutch and a way of controlling people. As f..."
Mark has explained everything we need to know here.... we can all go home now.
Last one to leave, turn off the lights. :)
Chris said: "......not 'told' not to kill, but told it is wrong 'to' kill. Full Stop."I thought the commanment was "Thou shalt not kill". That's being told not to kill.
were there is religion there will be mysteries and where there will be mysteries there will be people who seek answers,those who have questions rising like high tides in a ocean....and no matter what curiosity would pull mankind to quest for the happenings..!! best part is we can use only our greatest tool to dig numerous possibilities for the answer..and the that tool of mankind that never rust or deteriorate with time is "science"...
Some links for the "religion and science are the same!" people on here:Firstly, yet another instance where science had come to a position based on the evidence to hand, where later evidence shows that position to be incorrect (evidence from science btw, just in case you were wondering if it was divine inspiration), and guess what? Science says "we were wrong" and is modified accordingly! If science were like religion as people claim, this evidence would be rejected and the earlier position accepted on 'faith'.
Secondly, for those who claim that were evolution to be true we would all be selfish all the time, only doing things for ourselves, another study showing that sharing has an evolutionary basis.
Shannon wrote: "Talking about people who don't have sex, does the term "asexual" seem negative when compared to "abstinent"? Yes or no? Then, based on what? Based on your idea, something else, or ....Could it seem odd to the ear given the fact that not many people use the word "asexual" when referring to a person? Plant? Yes. Person? No."
I was going to say that "abstain" wasn't meant to be a direct comparison as it does not share the a- prefix, but apparently I'm wrong in an indirect way as it comes from the Latin by a convoluted path originally meaning to hold oneself back.
The term "asexual" used negatively I had only heard myself after meeting asexual people. Some have no romantic or sexual desire, some have romantic feelings but are not interested in sex. They were the ones that told me about the stark difference between being viewed as abstinent (refraining from desire) compared to the stigma of coming out as asexual and then being viewed as somehow sick or broken.
Yes I agree it could be the simple act of using a term not used for people nominally that makes it sound worse.
Anyway I was just curious about words with such similar origins having such markedly different pronunciations. I thought you'd find it intriguing. Personally I think ah-theist would sound 'softer' and less confrontational than "AY-theist", but it could be nothing more than happen-stance.
cHriS wrote: "These 'traditions' have not been 'found' to be immoral. Society has changed it's view and what was perfectly moral to our ancestors no longer seen that way. It is easy, with hindsight to recall what our ancestors did and say that they knew it to be immoral."Does that mean that you're suggesting that those things were moral in their time, but not now. Isn't it your contention that their is an absolute morality derived from god? Therefore those things should have always been immoral.
cHriS wrote: "And so does being an atheist, UNLESS you can explain where your morals originated from, and why you are UNABLE to pick and choose, but religious folk can."
Who said an atheist was "capslock" unable to pick and choose? The difference is that a moral atheist picks and chooses what is moral or not based on reason and their conscience, which is exactly what a lot of religious people do. In fact many moral people are attracted to religion for the well advertised moral parts. The problem is that this then adds "obedience" to the mix of reason and moral conscience, which can lead to otherwise moral people making immoral decisions based on obedience to a law they do not understand and are told they are not required to understand.
cHriS wrote: "......not 'told' not to kill, but told it is wrong 'to' kill. Full Stop."
Firstly, that is still being told "what" not "why". This is still not a moral decision but obedience, meaning that if the same source said that it is actually ok to kill then you can kill with no moral qualms. This is of course exactly what happens.
Secondly, I think it's only Buddhism that says that killing is wrong. Most of the major religions not only accept that killing is necessary and even just, but that often god kills deliberately out of vengeance or anger.
cHriS wrote: "It seems that you can justify killing and that’s fine. But if you do justify it then what right would you have to question past generations who can justify slavery....... for example."
Did I justify killing? No. I just pointed out it is not as clear a question as people may think. Is refraining from potentially lethal action to stop killing then supporting killing indirectly? If you do not oppose an injustice are you innocent or are you complacent? This question has been the basis of the morality for military and paramilitary forces since the start of civilisation. The general argument being that if you are not willing to use force to defend your people your people are at the mercy of those who would use force against them.
There is the path of the absolute pacifist, but is that truly more moral? I think it was Gandhi that once claimed that the Jews should have committed mass suicide to rouse the world against Hitler's aggression, but what would a roused world then do if they were pacifists too?
cHriS wrote: "First things first. Like you I am putting forward the other side of an argument and yes I would shoot. But that does not make it morally right although I could justify why I did it."
But that is morality, acting in a certain manner according to morals. A moral man may actually feel wrong if they failed to act, whether through unwillingness to take a life or fear of punishment, but is killing one person who is determined to kill many more truly immoral, and if so why? Saying that "killing is wrong" is not a moral stance, it is an empty statement. Why is killing wrong? Why is permitting the killing of others wrong?
cHriS wrote: "If a soldier is given an order and in disobeying it saves a life, he can justify why it did it but he still disobeyed the order."
Exactly. But here is the point, is it immoral to disobey orders? Is it immoral to disobey an immoral order? This is exactly the difference between religious morality and the morality of reason and conscience. One believes that morality is only about obedience, while the other recognises that sometimes authority can be immoral and it is wrong to obey immoral orders.
This is why we get the irony of priests signing a letter pointing out that they are afraid that if marriage equality comes about, then its likely that they may suffer legal or social consequences for teaching their religious beliefs and therefore it will discriminate against them. Yet they cannot seem to comprehend that this kind of discrimination is what they have been doing all along, and they are demanding the right to continue to put legal and social stigma against another group of people when they feel it would be unjust for them to end up in the same situation.
I remember reading a good treatise on justice, the idea that not only was justice "blind" but morally we must make our laws based on the idea that we do not know what position we would end up holding in our society. As if we chose our laws and then found out our race, our gender, our family's economic status, our intelligence and our sexuality.
What science does is provide proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' or at least prove what is most probable
cHriS wrote: "Most probable at the time; yes it was deemed to be probable. I bit like religion...it could go either way, but for now it's probable."
No. Nothing like religion. Science investigates and then gives the most probable reason, then most often science isn't proved wrong and abandoned like many religious people think, in most cases it is replaced by more exact or more detailed theorems, but these do not mean the previous ideas were wrong, it means they were incomplete.
Religion does not say "this is probable" and then adapt when better information is revealed, religion claims that "this is truth" and then fights anything that inevitably casts that "truth" into doubt. No one has converted, crusaded or preached based on the idea that "hey god is the most likely thing".
cHriS wrote: "........is reasonable to assume?????? It is reasonable for science to assume, I agree, because that’s what science does. But it is no more than an assumption, and it is only one of a number of assumptions or theories that science has on that subject."
And of course its all just guesswork no better than any other superstitious nonsense, and the computer in front of you, the electricity that powers it, the medicine you or your family has, your bountiful food on the plate all comes from "lucky guesses" that could have just as easily been arrived at by praying for them?
Again, you try to allege that science is somehow no more valid than any mythology you care to name, and yet you are using the evidence to the contrary to espouse your point.
cHriS wrote: "Not correct. If they were observable then it would be fact not an hypotheses/theory."
No. Again you don't understand much science. "Fact" is a statement of an arbitrary level of truth. Is it a fact that the sky is blue? Yes or no. It certainly can be observed as blue, but it is an optical effect, not a property of the blackness of space beyond or the colour of the air.
Religious apologists like to talk about "facts" and deride science as being only "theory" but that is because it feeds their narrative of absolute truth which is intellectual arrogance. Science says things are facts when it can prove it to "beyond reasonable doubt", but it always accepts that there may be a answer that better fits the evidence. From atoms, to protons to quarks and beyond.
Yet non-scientists continue to use the fruits of science to attack the very methodology that gave them these gifts.
cHriS wrote: "I may agree that money should be spent and that it may be a tiny drop.......... but your defence is what anyone interested in having money spent on exploration of the solar system would say. And I can see a moral argument taking shape here. Space v feeding people."
If you want to go down that path then it has been said that "any money not spent on feeding and clothing people is stained with the blood of starved babies." So you can use that argument if you wish, but you will need to wipe the blood off your computer monitor to make that argument.
Yes I want space explored, but one of the main reasons for this is that of all the things we spend money on, the acquiring of knowledge is one of the most moral for the simple reason that the pursuit of such knowledge often open up benefits to all that we could not even imagine.
cHriS wrote: "You are adding two and two and not getting four.
Show me where I, or anyone here has called a group of people immoral, disgusting, unnatural or sick."
Those people who say that certain consensual couples are fine but others should not be allowed are passing a judgement on others based on their own preferences. And there is a world beyond this post that makes the same arguments as those here, but equate gay marriage with legalised bestiality or spread misinformation about gay people being more likely to abuse children.
cHriS wrote: "I do not agree with gay marriage. But I am not closed minded and opinionated, well maybe a bit opinionated. Otherwise I would not be on this forum. "
Fair enough on the latter, being opinionated not necessarily being a bad thing. However I would still say "closed minded" if you are not gay and are yet judging the value of someone else's relationship based on your own values. Sure you can claim that it is immoral based on the claim that god is absolute morality and you are just obeying orders, but that isn't a moral decision. That's abdicating moral responsibility to another authority, commonly referred to in military tribunals as the "I was only following orders" defence.
cHriS wrote: "All we in the Uk are doing is saying to the others 'look at us, we are the good guys' we are recycling. America and China are laughing. "I can see why you have the problem with comprehending morality then.
First if a million people all stopped a taps worth of flooding on the Titanic, it would not have sunk. Second, it does not matter how small the amount we contribute individually is, if we start the ball rolling on others adopting it. This is the story of morality throughout the ages. Slavery has been opposed, reduced (but not eliminated) by a few people leading the way. The same with many other social reforms.
If China and the USA are laughing at us for recycling, then does their mockery hurt more than the eventual disasters that will assail us, disasters that have already begun? With the severity of storms increasing in the US and worse predicted, and the mass failure of worldwide crops due to unseasonable weather, is it moral to say "hey if they're not going to do the right thing then why should we?"
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" isn't an order to be followed, it's shrewd moral insight. If you want to be part of a society that treats you well, then you need to treat others well or how can you expect others to do the same to you? This has been a feature of the development of social animals from ants to apes, yet we are the ones who can choose to do it in ways unparalleled, or choose to defy it at short term personal gain but long term cost for society.
"Why should I be good when they are not", "what difference will it make", these are the arguments of children - I know, I hear it every other day.
...but equate gay marriage with legalised bestiality or spread misinformation about gay people being more likely to abuse children...I am always amazed by these arguments from the homophobic lobby. Firstly, far more non-gay people, like parents, sexually abuse their children and secondly do they suppose that all heterosexual couples adopt the missionary position when it comes to sexual activity?! They are arguments which stem from sheer prejudice and ignorance of the facts.
We had a court case over here a little while ago when B&B owners were prosecuted for discrimination when they refused a bed to a homosexual couple because the bible said it was 'unnatural'. I wondered at the time if they had any idea what their heterosexual guests got up to in the privacy of their bedrooms! Perhaps a bit of sado-masochism is OK since God himself appears to have sadistic tendencies.
Gary wrote: "Personally I think ah-theist would sound 'softer' and less confrontational than "AY-theist", but it could be nothing more than happen-stance. "
Ultimately, the point might be. You've made an argument that the term is problematic, given how many different people fall under the term. Despite that, many tend, perhaps due to the "simplicity" term, to make certain erroneous assumptions that all atheists .... One can fill in the blank.
I think you've moved us toward "believers" and "non-believers" and whatnot. Yes?
Ultimately, the point might be. You've made an argument that the term is problematic, given how many different people fall under the term. Despite that, many tend, perhaps due to the "simplicity" term, to make certain erroneous assumptions that all atheists .... One can fill in the blank.
I think you've moved us toward "believers" and "non-believers" and whatnot. Yes?
Shannon wrote: "Ultimately, the point might be. You've made an argument that the term is problematic, given how many different people fall under the term. Despite that, many tend, perhaps due to the "simplicity" term, to make certain erroneous assumptions that all atheists .... One can fill in the blank.I think you've moved us toward "believers" and "non-believers" and whatnot. Yes? "
Aye, that would be better. As I said it was an aside for those people interested in language :-)
MadgeUK wrote: "I am always amazed by these arguments from the homophobic lobby. Firstly, far more non-gay people, like parents, sexually abuse their children and secondly do they suppose that all heterosexual couples adopt the missionary position when it comes to sexual activity?! They are arguments which stem from sheer prejudice and ignorance of the facts."Most of these people also revere Christ and yet if someone came to them and said that they were not allowed to marry the person they loved and instead could only marry someone of a gender they weren't attracted to they'd be unhappy so why do unto others as they do not wish done to them?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/...
The hypocrisy is disgusting. They talk about potentially being persecuted for teaching "the truth about marriage" which demonstrates the inherent arrogance of "we're right and you're wrong" masquerading as "religious freedom". Then the irony of their concern at being singled out by society for being different, or potentially facing arrest or persecution. Well even if it was likely to happen it would still be getting treated as they have treated others.
Well I have news for the priests, being Catholic is a lifestyle choice.
Yes, from many posts I have read here I understand that there are quite a few Americans who are unable to admit to their employers/workmates that they are atheists. There are many jobs where we are called upon to do things with which we may not agree but our freedom to say so is not affected. I wonder how many pacifists do work connected to the arms industry for instance or how many vegetarians work in meat related industries. These priests are just bringing up straw man after straw man to cover their homophobia.
MadgeUK wrote: "Yes, from many posts I have read here I understand that there are quite a few Americans who are unable to admit to their employers/workmates that they are atheists. There are many jobs where we are called upon to do things with which we may not agree but our freedom to say so is not affected."
I've been taking part here for over a year and don't recall any posts by Americans who have discussed being unable to admit their non-belief in the workplace.
What have I missed?
Did you mean GR, in general, instead of this particular thread?
I've been taking part here for over a year and don't recall any posts by Americans who have discussed being unable to admit their non-belief in the workplace.
What have I missed?
Did you mean GR, in general, instead of this particular thread?
No not this thread, in the A&S club generally. I don't remember the names - perhaps they will post again here. I think it depends upon which part of America you live in, which may be why you do not know of it. In a country where a politician, particularly a President, reputedly dare not admit that they are an atheist/agnostic, this is not surprising. I also saw a UK documentary with Richard Dawkins when he visited some US atheists in secret because they were afraid to let their neighbours and employers know of their non-belief. http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistac...
Gary wrote: can see why you have the problem with comprehending morality then.I think our morality views differ. I may not comprehend all your views. That is somewhat different from having a problem with my own.
.First if a million people all stopped a taps worth of flooding on the Titanic, it would not have sunk. Second, it does not matter how small the amount we contribute individually is, if we start the ball rolling on others adopting it. This is the story of morality throughout the ages. Slavery has been opposed, reduced (but not eliminated) by a few people leading the way. The same with many other social reforms.
You missed the point, turning off taps on the Titanic won't make the iceberg go away.
If China and the USA are laughing at us for recycling, then does their mockery hurt more than the eventual disasters that will assail us, disasters that have already begun? With the severity of storms increasing in the US and worse predicted, and the mass failure of worldwide crops due to unseasonable weather, is it moral to say "hey if they're not going to do the right thing then why should we?".
Yes it is moral to say that, thats why I said it. The US knows all about the severity of storms, it does not need us to point that out to them. They seem happy with the situation, or they are putting up with it or they don't connect recycling with storms.
"Why should I be good when they are not", "what difference will it make", these are the arguments of children - I know, I hear it every other day.
..."
That sentiment looks good on paper, but you are not speaking as though you are living in the real world.
It's a bit like the 'don't punish criminals, reform them', way of thinking.
We do not need to reform the US, we do not have to be good in the hope they catch on to what we are doing and copy. It's all or nothing with global warming. Me recycling my bean can won't save me unless we all do the same, and even then I am not convinced about global warming anyway.
Me recycling my bean can won't save me unless we all do the same, and even then I am not convinced about global warming anyway.This is an argument for not doing anything about anything! Such sentiments were opined about the abolition of slavery, votes for men and then for women, the abolition of segregation, the decriminalising of homosexuality etc etc etc. Unless someone makes a stand in the first place the snowball of opinion which influences governments will not roll.
As for not being 'convinced' about global warming, are you not convinced that we are polluting the earth and the oceans with our rubbish and our 'landfill'? Can you not see evidence of that around you every day? Have you not seen the pictures from outer space of the pall of pollution which hangs over the globe but which is less over the countries where fumes from cars or power stations are less? You do not have to be 'convinced' by global warming arguments to use common sense about the harm we have been doing since the Industrial Revolution, or to realise that the vastly increased world population since that time has done much more harm than all the generations before it. As with all other arguments for beneficial change, we have to start somewhere, and 'every little helps', including your bean can.
MadgeUK wrote: "No not this thread, in the A&S club generally. I don't remember the names - perhaps they will post again here. I think it depends upon which part of America you live in, which may be why you do no..."
Oh, I've heard of it. I'd just not seen anyone discuss issues of that nature "here" ... on this thread. Therefore, I wondered how you defined "here" and your source of information.
Over-generalizations are troublesome, in my opinion; however, I think geography likely plays a role. I happen to live in New England and was born and raised here.
I do find myself wondering about the later part of your post. I'm aware of some of the statistics regarding people's opinions of non-believers, specifically in relation to morality. I'm horrified by those stats and don't hold with the idea that non-believers can't be trusted, are immoral, etc.... Further, I think it would be unlikely for an openly declared non-believer to be elected to the presidency at this time. (I do wonder if declared non-believers have been or would be elected to similar positions of power in other countries. For example, has anyone in the UK tried to become PM while openly admitting s/he was a non-believer.)
Having said all that, I do find myself wondering what non-believers think will happen to them if their neighbors and co-workers discover their identities. Please don't think I'm saying discrimination, etc... against non-believers doesn't exist. I know there are issues. I just wonder. How often do individual non-believers find themselves to be the target of neighbors and coworkers? What does that look like? I know what has happened to Jewish people, etc.... I know a former co-worker had "Jew lover" and "N-lover" keyed into her car. I've been called both. I remember a day when certain students in my old school bought white t-shirts and wrote things like, "Save a deer. Kill a ____." I'm, personally, having a hard time pulling up something from my life and knowledge base regarding discrimination on an individual level vs. a more general issue, like the state that passed the law stating one had to profess a belief in "God" else be imprisoned.
That latter example is horrid in and of itself. I just wonder ....
Oh, I've heard of it. I'd just not seen anyone discuss issues of that nature "here" ... on this thread. Therefore, I wondered how you defined "here" and your source of information.
Over-generalizations are troublesome, in my opinion; however, I think geography likely plays a role. I happen to live in New England and was born and raised here.
I do find myself wondering about the later part of your post. I'm aware of some of the statistics regarding people's opinions of non-believers, specifically in relation to morality. I'm horrified by those stats and don't hold with the idea that non-believers can't be trusted, are immoral, etc.... Further, I think it would be unlikely for an openly declared non-believer to be elected to the presidency at this time. (I do wonder if declared non-believers have been or would be elected to similar positions of power in other countries. For example, has anyone in the UK tried to become PM while openly admitting s/he was a non-believer.)
Having said all that, I do find myself wondering what non-believers think will happen to them if their neighbors and co-workers discover their identities. Please don't think I'm saying discrimination, etc... against non-believers doesn't exist. I know there are issues. I just wonder. How often do individual non-believers find themselves to be the target of neighbors and coworkers? What does that look like? I know what has happened to Jewish people, etc.... I know a former co-worker had "Jew lover" and "N-lover" keyed into her car. I've been called both. I remember a day when certain students in my old school bought white t-shirts and wrote things like, "Save a deer. Kill a ____." I'm, personally, having a hard time pulling up something from my life and knowledge base regarding discrimination on an individual level vs. a more general issue, like the state that passed the law stating one had to profess a belief in "God" else be imprisoned.
That latter example is horrid in and of itself. I just wonder ....
For example, has anyone in the UK tried to become PM while openly admitting s/he was a non-believer.)Our current Deputy Prime Minister is an atheist and was elected as an MP and then as Leader of his party. We have had a number of non-believers and agnostics lead parties in the UK. This is a less religious and more tolerant nation than the US, the religion of a candidate just does not figure in our elections or in public life. As Tony Blair was told by an aide when he wanted to mention faith/God in a speech 'Brits don't do religion'. Having had numerous oppressive kings and queeens who did do religion, we are happy to keep it on the back burner as a private matter. Except in the few catholic areas in Ireland and Scotland...), people wouldn't think about the religion of a candidate. A law such as you state about belief in God would be unthinkable here.
If the abortion issue is anything to go by perhaps atheists fear being attacked, or worse, killed, if they reveal their non-belief in a very religious state. Or they might not get jobs or lose their jobs - I believe Dutch has been in this position.
MadgeUK wrote: "If the abortion issue is anything to go by perhaps atheists fear being attacked, or worse, killed, if they reveal their non-belief in a very religious state. Or they might not get jobs or lose their jobs - I believe Dutch has been in this position."
Hmmm.... Fear is fear. I know. I'm just trying to get at rational fear and irrational fear and what lies between the two.
(Interesting about your PM. Didn't know that. Tangent.)
I wouldn't assume what has happened to some doctors, etc... who perform abortions would happen to non-believers. If a handful of abortionists were killed, my neighbors might kill me! That doesn't really follow, in my mind. I wonder if there are actual incidents of non-believers being targeted in the ways people of different religions, different races, etc... have been targeted.
If someone was fired, I think they'd have quite a discrimination lawsuit. Non-believers do have rights in the workplace here. True, employers discriminate ... and not just against non-believers. But, fortunately, they would have rights. Unlike, for example, the dental hygienist was found to be too pretty to keep her job (so said the dentist's wife) and the court agreed. (!)
Finally, who is Dutch?
Hmmm.... Fear is fear. I know. I'm just trying to get at rational fear and irrational fear and what lies between the two.
(Interesting about your PM. Didn't know that. Tangent.)
I wouldn't assume what has happened to some doctors, etc... who perform abortions would happen to non-believers. If a handful of abortionists were killed, my neighbors might kill me! That doesn't really follow, in my mind. I wonder if there are actual incidents of non-believers being targeted in the ways people of different religions, different races, etc... have been targeted.
If someone was fired, I think they'd have quite a discrimination lawsuit. Non-believers do have rights in the workplace here. True, employers discriminate ... and not just against non-believers. But, fortunately, they would have rights. Unlike, for example, the dental hygienist was found to be too pretty to keep her job (so said the dentist's wife) and the court agreed. (!)
Finally, who is Dutch?
Employers often get around 'rights'. In a country as strongly and militantly religious as the US it seems to me that the fear of atheists is rational enough. Wikipedia reports discrimination against atheists:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimi...
I wonder if there are actual incidents of non-believers being targeted in the ways people of different religions, different races, etc... have been targeted.
Cases of discrimination are not in a race! Seventeen US states have a law which states that you must believe in God to maintain public office of any kind despite the Constitution. Judges have discriminated against parents in custody cases. A school district in Texas refused to do business with an atheist. I find these to be cases of gross discrimination and there are more reported here:-
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index....
Dutch is a regular contributor to the Atheists & Sceptics bookclub.
MadgeUK wrote: This is an argument for not doing anything about anything! Such sentiments were opined about the abolition of slavery, votes for men and then for women, the abolition of segregation, the decriminalising of homosexuality etc etc etc.."No, this is an argument for everyone agreeing together what should be done and not just making half hearted gestures.
Slavery, votes for men and then for women, the abolition of segregation, the decriminalising of homosexuality etc etc has nothing to do with it. If your argument is not strong enough to stand on its own, then that must say something, about me being right.
Historical arguments and decisions have everything to do with it because that is how we democratically pursue such matters and learn from them. No country will get total agreement on anything but the weight of public opinion, the weight of thousands recycling their bean cans, can make a difference to how governments act. Governments today would not be pursuing any green policies if they thought the public were not in favour of them, they would not put such policies in their manifestos if they thought the public would not vote for them.
MadgeUK wrote: "Cases of discrimination are not in a race! "
Whoa....
I didn't say they were. Nor, given everything I said acknowledging the issues non-believers face, did my post, as a whole, lend to this perspective.
Different people learn differently, MadgeUK.
Whoa....
I didn't say they were. Nor, given everything I said acknowledging the issues non-believers face, did my post, as a whole, lend to this perspective.
Different people learn differently, MadgeUK.
MadgeUK wrote: "Historical arguments and decisions have everything to do with it because that is how we democratically pursue such matters and learn from them. No country will get total agreement on anything but ..."The UK Tory and Labour party, have implemented some green policies such as recycling in order to keep the green voter happy, for no other reason.
There are quite a few green policies in the UK - what is wrong with keeping the voter happy? No government can get elected without them. Such things are a start and help pave the way for other green policies. Rome wasn't built in a day and all that. But I won't pursue the matter further, I have just realised that I am on the wrong thread so will say bye-bye:).
Does that mean that you're suggesting that those things were moral in their time, but not now. Isn't it your contention that their is an absolute morality derived from god? Therefore those things should have always been immoral.Yes moral values can change, or at least we humans change them, and no that is not my contention.
The problem is that this then adds "obedience" to the mix of reason and moral conscience, which can lead to otherwise moral people making immoral decisions based on obedience to a law they do not understand and are told they are not required to understand..
You are not correct. Anyone can be obedient to anyone else or any thing else, this is not exclusive to a religion.
.Firstly, that is still being told "what" not "why". This is still not a moral decision but obedience, meaning that if the same source said that it is actually ok to kill then you can kill with no moral qualms. This is of course exactly what happens.
You are again replying out of context and for some reason using the word ‘obedience’ which I think you are using to dig at religion, when this is not really a religious topic.
Two atheists could have opposing views about whether it is right to kill or not.
Secondly, I think it's only Buddhism that says that killing is wrong.
We were not talking about whether killing is wrong. It is about someone who for example, will say that there are against killing but agree with abortion. Or killing is wrong, except for people who murder.
.There is the path of the absolute pacifist, but is that truly more moral? I think it was Gandhi that once claimed that the Jews should have committed mass suicide to rouse the world against Hitler's aggression, but what would a roused world then do if they were pacifists too?.
Again a good debate to have on paper but that is not the real world. Any more than saying that if Hitler believed that what he was doing was right then from his perspective he could not be wrong. It would have been others that believed him to be wrong.
Why is killing wrong? Why is permitting the killing of others wrong?.
In may or may not be wrong, but if it is wrong then it is wrong; there can be no half way. Because your half way may not be my half way.
Fair enough on the latter, being opinionated not necessarily being a bad thing. However I would still say "closed minded" if you are not gay and are yet judging the value of someone else's relationship based on your own values
If an immovable object comes into contact with an unstoppable force, what happens?
That is the dilemma between those who want to keep marriage between a man and a woman and also uphold gay rights.
Those people who say that certain consensual couples are fine but others should not be allowed are passing a judgement on others based on their own preferences. And there is a world beyond this post that makes the same arguments as those here, but equate gay marriage with legalised bestiality or spread misinformation about gay people being more likely to abuse children.
This is typical of your underhand replies. A bit like spin doctoring; hinting that any one who wants marriage to stay between a man and a woman somehow also agrees with legalised bestiality or will spread misinformation about gay people being more likely to abuse children.
Maybe if you had started a separate thread about bestiality or what ever, and made your point that way, fair enough. But if that is all you can use to make your point, your point is weak. And don’t forget my view is a majority view in the UK.
MadgeUK wrote: "For example, has anyone in the UK tried to become PM while openly admitting s/he was a non-believer.)Our current Deputy Prime Minister is an atheist and was elected as an MP and then as Leader of..."
Don't know about threats, but you will have trouble getting elected in the US as a public atheist.
There are cases of atheists having to 'stay in the closet', but that mostly only happens in the real far gone parts of the country.
cHriS wrote: "I think our morality views differ. I may not comprehend all your views. That is somewhat different from having a problem with my own."My point is that you seem to be saying that the only form of morality is obedience, but I am saying that this isn't morality at all, but ceding moral decisions to an outside authority.
Hence why is it wrong to kill? Because someone told you it is wrong is not 'why'. Morality and immorality requires comprehension of what is right and wrong to actually make a decision. When is it right to disobey, for example? When is it wrong to obey?
cHriS wrote: "You missed the point, turning off taps on the Titanic won't make the iceberg go away."
I didn't miss the point. The iceberg didn't sink the Titanic, the flooding of water caused by the damage caused by the iceberg sunk the Titanic. However if you had stopped the flooding the Titanic would not have sunk even if the iceberg was still there.
In fact that was the point of the bulkheads, to prevent flooding. Unfortunately the damage was too extensive and the anti-flooding protection did not go high enough.
cHriS wrote: "Yes it is moral to say that, thats why I said it. The US knows all about the severity of storms, it does not need us to point that out to them. They seem happy with the situation, or they are putting up with it or they don't connect recycling with storms."
Many do not connect the storms with Climate Change yet (but apparently opinion is changing) but many of them also have the attitude that if they spend money and effort on protecting the environment then they are disadvantaging themselves against countries that don't therefore why should they. Meanwhile corporations and their lobbyists are afraid that regulation will harm their short term profit margins and therefore apply pressure to avoid legislation by implying either the effect of pouring millions of tons of gases into the atmosphere does not do what it is known to do, or that we a powerless to effect things therefore we shouldn't try.
Meanwhile the problem rapidly worsens as people go "well I'm not doing anything because no one else is".
This is the moral equivalent of failing to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. You can't expect people to take responsibility if you're not willing to. So saying that the US is right to laugh at those who are trying to undo the damage they are doing is not moral.
cHriS wrote: "That sentiment looks good on paper, but you are not speaking as though you are living in the real world."
So you are choosing to discount it because it doesn't fit your vision of reality? This is a direct observation of someone who works with children, are you saying it doesn't happen? Based on what evidence?
cHriS wrote: "It's a bit like the 'don't punish criminals, reform them', way of thinking."
Which is invalid to your mind? Are you aware that there is only two punitive responses to a wrongdoing. Vengeance and punishment. Punishment is an attempt to exact reform via force, if you do not think criminals need punishment to reform them then your only answer is vengeance.
Why do you punish a child when they misbehave? Is it to get your own back or is it to teach them that this form of behaviour is wrong and therefore to reform their future behaviour.
"'don't punish criminals, reform them', way of thinking." sounds like a good put down on paper, on tabloid conservative paper to be specific, but it doesn't sound like the real world.
cHriS wrote: "We do not need to reform the US, we do not have to be good in the hope they catch on to what we are doing and copy. It's all or nothing with global warming. Me recycling my bean can won't save me unless we all do the same, and even then I am not convinced about global warming anyway. "
Well that shows a lack of understanding of science throughout. First, if something has a cumulative effect, then reducing the rate of effect can make a big difference. It is not all or nothing, there is no binary "switch".
As for you not being "convinced" by global warming, that's fine. Why should you be convinced when you don't do science? Currently Climate Change is accepted by the great majority of the scientific community. In fact it is a bit hard not to accept it if you know that (a) certain gases in the atmosphere trap heat (b) the atmospheric concentration of those gases has increased sharply in the last centuries and (c) in the last couple of centuries we have been pumping the same gases into our atmosphere by the megaton.
The specifics are a lot more uncertain because of the sheer complexity of the feedback systems of weather patterns, climates etc. However the basic conclusion that more energy is being trapped in the atmosphere all of the time is fairly self-apparent. This does not mean that weather will just get steadily warmer though. In any complex system there are states of stability and states of instability. When you change the energy state of a system you are likely to go through an interim state of instability and chaos until you reach the threshold of the next stable state. Hence the prediction is not of each place just getting warmer, the prediction is of storms, wildly fluctuating weather (colder and warmer) and local climate patterns changing, meaning some places will get warmer, some dryer, some wetter and some cooler. However, this will all mean huge damage to the local ecology. The last time it seems this happened it may have happened slower (because of thousands of years of volcanic outgassing) but it led to the greatest mass extinction of all time.
Of course you can believe that actually its a scientific conspiracy to rob poor oil companies of their meagre earnings...
cHriS wrote: "Yes moral values can change, or at least we humans change them, and no that is not my contention."So god cannot therefore be a moral absolute since you claim that morals change and therefore religion is not a source of morality.
Personally I feel that there are certain moral axioms that morality can then be derived from. The most basic of which is that people should be free to choose what they want to do as long as it does not harm others or their equivalent right.
cHriS wrote: "You are not correct. Anyone can be obedient to anyone else or any thing else, this is not exclusive to a religion."
How can I not be correct when that's exactly what I said?
People can obey other people, or ideological principles, or religion. This does not make obedience moral.
cHriS wrote: "You are again replying out of context and for some reason using the word ‘obedience’ which I think you are using to dig at religion, when this is not really a religious topic."
Not out of context. I asked why it was moral not to kill. You claimed that it was wrong to kill according to religion, but you did not explain "why". If you do not kill simply because you are told not to, that is obedience. If you understand why its wrong to kill then killing or not becomes a moral decision.
cHriS wrote: "Two atheists could have opposing views about whether it is right to kill or not."
Yes.
cHriS wrote: "We were not talking about whether killing is wrong. It is about someone who for example, will say that there are against killing but agree with abortion. Or killing is wrong, except for people who murder."
Exactly. So where does the moral choice come in?
For example the bible says "Thou shalt not kill", but it also then lists many examples of when people should be put to death. Which is right?
cHriS wrote: "Again a good debate to have on paper but that is not the real world. Any more than saying that if Hitler believed that what he was doing was right then from his perspective he could not be wrong. It would have been others that believed him to be wrong."
Again you avoid questions by saying "it looks good on paper, but it isn't real". Are you saying that these people did not say these things, or that these things did not happen.
You know the ability to create hypothetical situations and then try to answer them has been used by wise people for thousands of years, why don't you give it a go? The point being that these "hypothetical" situations have arisen in the past and are likely to again.
For example. If killing is wrong, do you think that being a soldier is wrong? If a war broke out and conscription was re-introduced would you conscientiously object? If you think that just "appears good on paper" then I ask you a real question. In your opinion is every soldier who has taken a life in service of your country guilty of immorality?
cHriS wrote: "In may or may not be wrong, but if it is wrong then it is wrong; there can be no half way. Because your half way may not be my half way."
That still doesn't address why it's wrong, its just avoiding the question and also implying total moral relativism which is the opposite I'd expect from a religious person.
cHriS wrote: "If an immovable object comes into contact with an unstoppable force, what happens?"
The physicist says "there are infinities in this equation so any answer would be likely misleading".
Its an interesting question on paper, but according to physics immovable objects and unstoppable forces are actually not part of the real world.
cHriS wrote: "That is the dilemma between those who want to keep marriage between a man and a woman and also uphold gay rights. "
The question is why do you want to keep it only between a man and a woman, if it isn't your marriage we are talking about? It used to be that certain people wanted it to be illegal for other people to marry a different race. Where they right to protest, or where they being bigoted (whether they realised they were or not)?
cHriS wrote: "This is typical of your underhand replies. A bit like spin doctoring; hinting that any one who wants marriage to stay between a man and a woman somehow also agrees with legalised bestiality or will spread misinformation about gay people being more likely to abuse children."
No.
I am pointing out actual things that have happened.
“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue, yes, it does,” he said, referring to a Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas, that struck down a sodomy law in the Lone Star state.
cHriS wrote: "But if that is all you can use to make your point, your point is weak. And don’t forget my view is a majority view in the UK."
Strange how you support majority views that you agree with but at the same time disagree with majority views that you don't.
I only care about majorities when the people involved have the training and experience to make an informed opinion, rather than repeating what some authority has told them.
My point is not "weak" because I have evidence to support it. My point is that people should not have their freedom to choose what makes them happy curtailed if that freedom does no harm to anyone else.
If you do not like gay marriage, then do not get gay married. That does not give you the right to deny others their choice of partner, just as much as they do not have the right to stop you from having a heterosexual marriage.
Do unto others...
cHriS wrote: "The UK Tory and Labour party, have implemented some green policies such as recycling in order to keep the green voter happy, for no other reason. "So democratically elected leaders responded to the will of some of their constituents? Yeah that should be nipped in the bud!
cHriS wrote: "No, this is an argument for everyone agreeing together what should be done and not just making half hearted gestures."Which is a recipe for the ideologically extreme to hold the rest of society to ransom. This is exactly what happened with the US debt ceiling debates, where the majority agreed but a minority were able to hold the process hostage.
Some people are never going to agree, especially those who profit greatly for every moment they are not forced to act. Moreover, if X, Y and Z can be done to help, it's stupid not to do X just because no one has yet agreed to Y and Z. It's like saying "why have a system of law when some people break it anyway?"
cHriS wrote: "Slavery, votes for men and then for women, the abolition of segregation, the decriminalising of homosexuality etc etc has nothing to do with it."
Wrong. Each of those cases was a minority opinion with a lot of inertia against reformation and change, but people got things changed through the hard work of those with the conviction to do what is right.
So very similar in each case. The claim "oh it's pointless, what can I do to change the status quo" would have left these causes unresolved if everyone thought as you do.
cHriS wrote: "If your argument is not strong enough to stand on its own, then that must say something, about me being right. "
Even if the argument was weak, which it isn't, it still says nothing about you being right. That's the "god of the gaps" argument used in a different context. You are saying that because I claim "A" and I claim that your answer "B" is wrong, therefore I am right. What about answers C through Z? It is entirely possible for two people to have different opinions, both of which are wrong. In fact this is demonstrably the case with religion, not all religions can be right and certainly more than one has to be wrong.
MadgeUK wrote: "Here is an example of one person making a difference:-http://io9.com/5976112/how-19+year+ol..."
Thanks for that, that guy is a hero.
Gary wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Here is an example of one person making a difference:-http://io9.com/5976112/how-19+year+ol..."
Thanks for tha..."
Good article. Gives you a bit of hope.
Not a fan of creationism.
On the surface I would choose a world without religion. Science is the expansion of the human possibility and the search for unanswered questions always yield the extraordinary. I prefer to be part of a world that understands WHY the sun appears in the eastern sky rather than one that has faith the sun will appear.
Gary wrote: So democratically elected leaders responded to the will of some of their constituents? Yeah that should be nipped in the bud! ..."
I will try and reply to all the above over the next few days.
You may have missed the point here. It's not that the politicans want to do something 'green' it is more that they want the green vote.
In the same way that they are happy to reduce the benefits of low paid workers but not touch pensions. Low paid workers tend not to vote or not vote Tory. Pensioners do tend to vote and many vote Tory.
It's like saying "why have a system of law when some people break it anyway?".It’s not. Because each country has it’s own laws relevant to that country. But us in the UK recycling, is not going to protect the UK; we are to small to make a difference. But recycling attracts green votes. If we really want to lead the world then we should stop breeding cows. We could live without their meat and milk.
.Wrong. Each of those cases was a minority opinion with a lot of inertia against reformation and change, but people got things changed through the hard work of those with the conviction to do what is right.
Well if I go along with that as an analogy (which I don’t) how is me putting a bean can in a recycling bin going to stop the US from breeding cattle or using their cars? It is not my bean can that would save the world (if it indeed needs saving) it would be a cleaner way of powering a car and less cattle that would make the US a less polluting country.
The claim "oh it's pointless, what can I do to change the status quo" would have left these causes unresolved if everyone thought as you do.
Comparing slavery with recycling does not work.
To reverse your think about the slavery analogy; slavery regardless of how wrong it was, was not a threat to the planet as you seem to think me not recycling is.
.In fact this is demonstrably the case with religion, not all religions can be right and certainly more than one has to be wrong.
Context has to play it’s part. If it is just between A & B then using the science ‘principle’ of, if we don’t know about C then we discount it, there is no C.
Not all religions can be right???? Right about what? Stating that there is a god. They may all be right. Stating that they are the one true religion….only one can be right.
cHriS wrote: "Any more than saying that if Hitler believed that what he was doing was right then from his perspective he could not be wrong."I'm calling Godwin's Law here :)
cHriS wrote: "If an immovable object comes into contact with an unstoppable force, what happens?"The unstoppable force stops and the immovable object moves.
Regarding Godwin's Law ....
I just Googled it again; I'd not heard of it before this thread. It came up on Wiki, as most of you likely know. I read the whole thing this time. I found the following interesting ....
"Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust," Godwin has written.[10]"
I found that fascinating. In thinking of past discussions regarding various things and the times people have mentioned Hitler and Nazi experimentation on innocents, people have sometimes "glibly" made hyperbolic comparisons. However, at other times, it's not been bulls**t exaggeration and comparison.
So, ... if I were to take the above as the truth and read it literally, it's Godwin's Law if there's an element of unthinking extremism and inappropriate comparison ... only.
Something to think about.
I just Googled it again; I'd not heard of it before this thread. It came up on Wiki, as most of you likely know. I read the whole thing this time. I found the following interesting ....
"Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust," Godwin has written.[10]"
I found that fascinating. In thinking of past discussions regarding various things and the times people have mentioned Hitler and Nazi experimentation on innocents, people have sometimes "glibly" made hyperbolic comparisons. However, at other times, it's not been bulls**t exaggeration and comparison.
So, ... if I were to take the above as the truth and read it literally, it's Godwin's Law if there's an element of unthinking extremism and inappropriate comparison ... only.
Something to think about.
cHriS wrote: "Well if I go along with that as an analogy (which I don’t) how is me putting a bean can in a recycling bin going to stop the US from breeding cattle or using their cars?"
Must say ... this discussion makes me want to buy a gallon of milk and a steak. Might put both on my grocery list for this weekend.
Now, regarding bean cans, .... I just ran across all sorts of things one can do with bean cans on Pinterest. Recycling for the crafty. ;)
Must say ... this discussion makes me want to buy a gallon of milk and a steak. Might put both on my grocery list for this weekend.
Now, regarding bean cans, .... I just ran across all sorts of things one can do with bean cans on Pinterest. Recycling for the crafty. ;)
cHriS wrote: "Not all religions can be right???? Right about what? Stating that there is a god. "
Makes sense to me, cHriS. All of those people, over all of those generations ... for thousands and thousands of years ... all believing in "God" or a higher power of some kind.
Oh, I know.... Non-believers use this as quasi-proof that religion/belief is silly and wrong. It doesn't seem so to me. If that many people have had the same universal idea for tens of thousands of years, I'm thinking there's something to it.
What's problematic for us, in my opinion, is assuming we can truly understand "God" and all that involves. One true religion with one set of beliefs. I find that to be sketchy. I can envision knowing there is an amazingly phenomenal power that is beyond my understanding. I'm pretty sure all religions have shared this idea, at one level or another, at its core.
Makes sense to me, cHriS. All of those people, over all of those generations ... for thousands and thousands of years ... all believing in "God" or a higher power of some kind.
Oh, I know.... Non-believers use this as quasi-proof that religion/belief is silly and wrong. It doesn't seem so to me. If that many people have had the same universal idea for tens of thousands of years, I'm thinking there's something to it.
What's problematic for us, in my opinion, is assuming we can truly understand "God" and all that involves. One true religion with one set of beliefs. I find that to be sketchy. I can envision knowing there is an amazingly phenomenal power that is beyond my understanding. I'm pretty sure all religions have shared this idea, at one level or another, at its core.
cHriS wrote: "You may have missed the point here. It's not that the politicans want to do something 'green' it is more that they want the green vote.In the same way that they are happy to reduce the benefits of low paid workers but not touch pensions. Low paid workers tend not to vote or not vote Tory. Pensioners do tend to vote and many vote Tory. "
Fair enough, however that is way democracy should work. The politicians should listen to the wants and needs of the people they represent and then represent them. Hence, people are worried about climate change and pollution in general, therefore politicians should, and have implemented appropriate policies.
However, democracy in the UK tends to be a "mediacracy" instead, where the government creates scapegoats and spin in the media which then allows them to make the policies they want. Climate Change denialism and the general scorn of many other green policies suit their corporate and rich donors very well.
cHriS wrote: "It’s not. Because each country has it’s own laws relevant to that country. But us in the UK recycling, is not going to protect the UK; we are to small to make a difference."Again "to small to make a difference" is an empty excuse. Net emission of 495 Million tonnes of CO2 in 2010. Good news is that's actually down from 1990 by a significant percentage.
Recycling is also of special interest, as many commodities are rare and their cost is increasing as supplies dry up. Recycling is a potential (and literal in some cases) goldmine for the person that figures out ways to do it efficiently. Recycling of plastics in particular could cut our dependency on oil significantly and save money as oil prices continue to rise.
cHriS wrote: "Well if I go along with that as an analogy (which I don’t) how is me putting a bean can in a recycling bin going to stop the US from breeding cattle or using their cars? It is not my bean can that would save the world (if it indeed needs saving) it would be a cleaner way of powering a car and less cattle that would make the US a less polluting country."
That all assumes that its an either/or situation. It isn't. Every bit of pollution has a cumulative effect, therefore every bit saved reduces the rate of damage. Furthermore if you're not willing to get off your backside and wash a can out, then how can you expect other countries to do their bit, whatever "their bit" may be?
Do unto others...
cHriS wrote: "Comparing slavery with recycling does not work."
Comparing two causes with laudable goals where a small minority fought for change from a complacent society? No, not similar at all.
cHriS wrote: "To reverse your think about the slavery analogy; slavery regardless of how wrong it was, was not a threat to the planet as you seem to think me not recycling is."
Not recycling is not a threat to the planet, nor was slavery, however both are a threat to the overall happiness and security of the human race. The planet will happily go on without us.
Again the analogy works, why should slave owners make an effort when everything works fine from their point of view. Similarly why should you make any effort to reduce your damage to the planet, however small, when the first people to suffer are likely to be in other lands like pacific islanders about to be flooded by rising seas, or poor countries struck by famine caused by unseasonable weather? How would you feel if the situation was reversed.
Doubtless you will again claim that what difference will one can make? Not a lot, however what difference will an average of one can from every UK citizen every day of the year make? About 22 billion times the effect of one can.
But it takes people to stop bemoaning that they are individually too small to make a difference when our combined efforts can easily make a difference. Lets face it if it wasn't for our combined efforts in the first place the CO2 concentration would be normal.
cHriS wrote: "Not all religions can be right???? Right about what? Stating that there is a god. They may all be right. Stating that they are the one true religion….only one can be right. "
Again a narrow viewpoint. I like the indignation of "they can't all be right about the existence of god" when that statement itself is denying the existence of a large portion of the worlds religions, past and present. Not all religions state there is a God. Not all religions state there is only one God. Not all religions state that their vision of "god" is anything similar to what another's vision of "god" is. Is god a purely spiritual entity, is god a deified human, is god actually a shared consciousness, is god just a term for an impersonal force, or is god a discrete entity, or a dualistic one or is he three things that are combined in one?
Certainly many religious people like to think that all religions worship the same god in many different ways, but that is arrogance disguised as humility. This allows for the assumption that everyone actually worships ones own god, but other people are not getting the details right.
So yes. Not all religions can be "right" even allowing for an arbitrarily forgiving level of "right". Most religions contain claims that absolutely conflict with the claims of at least two other religions.
Cerebus wrote: "I'm calling Godwin's Law here :)"I'd let it be. :-) We had this discussion a while back and some people on here had not heard of Godwin's (which perhaps indicates a more highbrow audience that the rest of the internet! :-D ) furthermore religiously inclined people were under the impression that non-religious people calling it were doing so specifically as a get-out clause that it was unfair to bring the subject up in a conversation about religion because it was damning evidence against the non-religious side. Which of course, it isn't.
Shannon wrote: "Makes sense to me, cHriS. All of those people, over all of those generations ... for thousands and thousands of years ... all believing in "God" or a higher power of some kind."Most of which were suspiciously human in temperament, attitude and even on occasion, appearance. Yet for thousands of years we have been discovering non-human, impersonal forces and reasons behind almost everything once attributed to a god's whim.
Is there something in the idea of generation upon generation of humans attributing a human-like uberentity to be a higher power? Well for a start its completely psychologically understandable as we spend much of our lives under the power of other humans, beginning with our parents and continuing with the leaders of our community (historically most of which have claimed to be gods, or more lately ruling by divine right. A claim not limited to European royalty if you listen to the claims of several of the US presidential candidates that just ran "because god wanted them to")
Shannon wrote: "Oh, I know.... Non-believers use this as quasi-proof that religion/belief is silly and wrong. It doesn't seem so to me. If that many people have had the same universal idea for tens of thousands of years, I'm thinking there's something to it."
If you truly want to learn the lesson of thousands of years of history, from thunder gods, to fairies, to the movement of the sun, almost every thing attributed to the will of a god has been found to have another impersonal explanation, with less and less left to explain. Certainly there are still mysteries, but basing the answer to those mysteries on a hypothesis that has been consistently found to be wrong, seems to be the wrong lesson learnt.
However, is it "proof" or "quasi-proof", no, because how can you prove a negative? How can you prove something wrong if you cannot even be consistent with what it is, and are always willing to change the definition to preserve the idea.
However, what it isn't is proof for the existence of god/gods/supernatural forces. A hypothesis never proven to be right when applied to mysterious things; from the propagation of lightening to the rising of the sun, is not proof it's a good idea to continue to be apply it to things that are still mysteries.
Shannon wrote: "What's problematic for us, in my opinion, is assuming we can truly understand "God" and all that involves. One true religion with one set of beliefs. I find that to be sketchy. I can envision knowing there is an amazingly phenomenal power that is beyond my understanding. I'm pretty sure all religions have shared this idea, at one level or another, at its core. "
This is indeed the problem, yet one that religious people continue to miss. They talk about mysteries, power and things beyond our understanding, then posit a completely comprehensible and mundane explanation as somehow deep and mysterious.
We can barely tell if Dolphins are conscious beings or "persons" if you will, because they are so different to us. Yet they are mammals that share a huge chunk of our physiology, DNA, history and live on the same tiny planet. Yet somehow religious people want to believe that a being vaster than the staggering size of the universe not only shares human like personality and emotions, but has opinions on how we conduct ourselves?
I recently came across a "new" group of dissenters calling themselves "ignostics". The one I read was quite hostile to atheists, but seemingly for the exact same reason religious people were, the general assumption that atheism is an active denial of something, rather than a lack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
The problem with this viewpoint for me is seems to again make the excuse that word "god" is not yet well defined enough to make a decision whether he exists or not, yet that seems to me to be a circular argument. Does god exist? Well as soon as we find something that we can apply the label "god" to then we can decide.
Gary wrote: "This is indeed the problem, yet one that religious people continue to miss. They talk about mysteries, power and things beyond our understanding, then posit a completely comprehensible and mundane explanation as somehow deep and mysterious.
We can barely tell if Dolphins are conscious beings or "persons" if you will, because they are so different to us. Yet they are mammals that share a huge chunk of our physiology, DNA, history and live on the same tiny planet. Yet somehow religious people want to believe that a being vaster than the staggering size of the universe not only shares human like personality and emotions, but has opinions on how we conduct ourselves?
I recently came across a "new" group of dissenters calling themselves "ignostics". The one I read was quite hostile to atheists, but seemingly for the exact same reason religious people were, the general assumption that atheism is an active denial of something, rather than a lack. "
We're in agreement that this is a problem. It's a problem that I, as a "religious" person, do not make.
When you discuss the fact that, for thousands of years, people have attributed human characteristics to God, gods, etc..., you're quite correct. But, .... Wouldn't that be an example of people thinking they understand God and all that involves? Example ... I understand the gods and think Zeus likes having sex. Example ... I understand God and believe in the Trinity. Example ....
Every single group of people, for tens of thousands of years, have believed in a higher power. Every single one. There's not, to my knowledge, been one, not one, culture who has not believed. And, no, belief isn't just about explaining the world around us, thus .... I find this to be, possibly, quite significant.
Now, regarding "atheism" being an active denial of something rather than a lack ....
First, I'm not "quite hostile" to non-believers and don't hold with that. I'm disgusted by it. Having said that, let's think this through a bit.
If we were to look back at the posts of some of the most vocal non-believers on this thread, would their posts read as an active denial of something or a lack?
Let's think about the American Atheists and what I found on their site. People can go and take a peek if they'd like. Remember the part where they discuss the intellect of believers? Some are just plain stupid. In their opinion. But, some are intelligent. Those are the people to target. Be crude. Be crass. Splash water in their face to wake them up. Makes me think of references to "the big man in the sky" and "an imaginary friend" and ....
Well, let's take a look at part of an article from their site. It was posted by admin.
"We Atheists must do all in our power to brew the wake-up potion that will clear the minds of our fellow men and women. We must revoke the evolutionary curse that nature laid upon us when it created religion as the mediating agency for the most complicated form of sociality life on our planet has known. We must break the evil spell that religion has cast upon the castles of our minds and upon the towers of our thoughts. We must do everything in our power to free the thought-prisoners of our planet.
Not only is this an ethical necessity, it is a practical necessity as well. We who, by whatever means it came about, have freed our own minds, cannot forever remain free when all about us not only are not free but are busy forging - in their ecclesiastical dungeons - chains with which once again they can confine our minds.
It is too great a job for Batman and Robin - too much even for Superman. But it is the job American Atheists has taken on. It has given its solemn promise that it shall work ceaselessly and with all its energy resources to bring about the liberation of the human mind, to free religion’s prisoners, and to find cures for all the varieties of that most deadly disease, religiosity."
(Formerly a professor of biology and geology, Frank R. Zindler is now a science writer. He is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the New York Academy of Science, The Society of Biblical Literature, and the American Schools of Oriental Research. He is the editor of American Atheist.)
Does that sound like an active denial of something or a lack?
Regardless of philosophy and whether or not you can prove a negative, it seems to me that certain atheists, like the American Atheists, promote an active denial of ....
Something to consider ....
We can barely tell if Dolphins are conscious beings or "persons" if you will, because they are so different to us. Yet they are mammals that share a huge chunk of our physiology, DNA, history and live on the same tiny planet. Yet somehow religious people want to believe that a being vaster than the staggering size of the universe not only shares human like personality and emotions, but has opinions on how we conduct ourselves?
I recently came across a "new" group of dissenters calling themselves "ignostics". The one I read was quite hostile to atheists, but seemingly for the exact same reason religious people were, the general assumption that atheism is an active denial of something, rather than a lack. "
We're in agreement that this is a problem. It's a problem that I, as a "religious" person, do not make.
When you discuss the fact that, for thousands of years, people have attributed human characteristics to God, gods, etc..., you're quite correct. But, .... Wouldn't that be an example of people thinking they understand God and all that involves? Example ... I understand the gods and think Zeus likes having sex. Example ... I understand God and believe in the Trinity. Example ....
Every single group of people, for tens of thousands of years, have believed in a higher power. Every single one. There's not, to my knowledge, been one, not one, culture who has not believed. And, no, belief isn't just about explaining the world around us, thus .... I find this to be, possibly, quite significant.
Now, regarding "atheism" being an active denial of something rather than a lack ....
First, I'm not "quite hostile" to non-believers and don't hold with that. I'm disgusted by it. Having said that, let's think this through a bit.
If we were to look back at the posts of some of the most vocal non-believers on this thread, would their posts read as an active denial of something or a lack?
Let's think about the American Atheists and what I found on their site. People can go and take a peek if they'd like. Remember the part where they discuss the intellect of believers? Some are just plain stupid. In their opinion. But, some are intelligent. Those are the people to target. Be crude. Be crass. Splash water in their face to wake them up. Makes me think of references to "the big man in the sky" and "an imaginary friend" and ....
Well, let's take a look at part of an article from their site. It was posted by admin.
"We Atheists must do all in our power to brew the wake-up potion that will clear the minds of our fellow men and women. We must revoke the evolutionary curse that nature laid upon us when it created religion as the mediating agency for the most complicated form of sociality life on our planet has known. We must break the evil spell that religion has cast upon the castles of our minds and upon the towers of our thoughts. We must do everything in our power to free the thought-prisoners of our planet.
Not only is this an ethical necessity, it is a practical necessity as well. We who, by whatever means it came about, have freed our own minds, cannot forever remain free when all about us not only are not free but are busy forging - in their ecclesiastical dungeons - chains with which once again they can confine our minds.
It is too great a job for Batman and Robin - too much even for Superman. But it is the job American Atheists has taken on. It has given its solemn promise that it shall work ceaselessly and with all its energy resources to bring about the liberation of the human mind, to free religion’s prisoners, and to find cures for all the varieties of that most deadly disease, religiosity."
(Formerly a professor of biology and geology, Frank R. Zindler is now a science writer. He is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the New York Academy of Science, The Society of Biblical Literature, and the American Schools of Oriental Research. He is the editor of American Atheist.)
Does that sound like an active denial of something or a lack?
Regardless of philosophy and whether or not you can prove a negative, it seems to me that certain atheists, like the American Atheists, promote an active denial of ....
Something to consider ....
Shannon wrote: "Every single group of people, for tens of thousands of years, have believed in a higher power. Every single one. There's not, to my knowledge, been one, not one, culture who has not believed. And, no, belief isn't just about explaining the world around us, thus .... I find this to be, possibly, quite significant."I don't see anything strange or portentous about that. We are small and weak, the world is large, the universe larger. Do we believe in things more powerful than us? We don't need to, we witness things more powerful than us every day.
So how is acknowledging our place in the universe an indication of the existence of god or gods? You use the phrase "higher power" but that is a highly subjective phrase that carries inherent implications. By using it you don't mean a "higher power" in terms of vacuum state energy, or the gravity that binds us, etc. The term "higher power" contains the implication of an authority and thereby an author.
As I've said before the psychological reasoning involved in projecting personality onto the impersonal is easy to understand and something most people do on a daily basis. How many times do people swear at inanimate objects as if they malfunctioned or behaved in a deliberate manner? This tendency is well documented and routinely found to be misguided.
Shannon wrote: "First, I'm not "quite hostile" to non-believers and don't hold with that. I'm disgusted by it. Having said that, let's think this through a bit."
I hope I didn't give you the impression I was calling you hostile. The person I was talking about was on a blog that decried the so-called "new atheism" and smugly suggested that both sides were misguided thanks to the ignostic philosophy. However, when I examined the ignostic philosophy I agreed with the concept that the definition of god wasn't sufficient to actually test his existence, but to my mind that was the exact point that most non-theists make. To then sit on the fence until theists settle on a definition seems to me to be an intrinsic admission that there is a definition to wait for, while the non-theist position is to continue to look for things that can be defined without restricting oneself to whether it can be defined as a "god".
Shannon wrote: "If we were to look back at the posts of some of the most vocal non-believers on this thread, would their posts read as an active denial of something or a lack?"
Depends on context. Most non-believers on this thread are responding to active claims about the existence of god and the superiority or equivalence of religion to science. Yet most will not repeatedly claim "god does not exist" instead they will take the claims of religious people and analyse them. For example, the repeated claim that religion is vital to morality, that science is somehow immoral, that religion somehow moderates or inspires science.
Shannon wrote: "Let's think about the American Atheists and what I found on their site. People can go and take a peek if they'd like. Remember the part where they discuss the intellect of believers? Some are just plain stupid. In their opinion. But, some are intelligent. Those are the people to target. Be crude. Be crass. Splash water in their face to wake them up. Makes me think of references to "the big man in the sky" and "an imaginary friend" and ...."
Again, you are taking a small group and conflating them to represent all, far worse is said by religious people in far greater numbers. Far worse is done by religious people. Personally I think that religious people need to find the doubt within themselves before they can walk the difficult path out of dogma, otherwise they are substituting one blind authority for another. Some people disagree. Yet as I said before non-thiests/atheists are defined by what they don't agree with not with what they do agree with. So attempting to use one persons opinion to decry another's would be worse than me calling you inherently misogynistic because you believe in god, so do Muslims and some Muslims use that belief to justify misogynist laws and behaviour. (Worse because the existence of god is something you both do agree with, while between the AA site and me the common thread is neither believe in the same set of concepts, but that does not mean we share the same belief.)
Well, let's take a look at part of an article from their site. It was posted by admin.
Shannon wrote: "Does that sound like an active denial of something or a lack? "
Does it say "God doesn't exist"? No. It says nothing about the claims of religion, rather it is making the statement that the ideology of religion is closed and observed as harmful, not only to the practitioners but to those around them and those dependent on them.
So nothing about denying "god exists" but a lot about the problems with ideology being placed above reason. A matter I do agree with, whether religion or politics, if ideology is enshrined above observation and reason, then this becomes dangerous to those subject to it, willingly or not.
Shannon wrote: "Regardless of philosophy and whether or not you can prove a negative, it seems to me that certain atheists, like the American Atheists, promote an active denial of .... "
Not according to your example, though I can understand how you feel it is, in the same way that a hole in the balanced field of a semiconductor acts and behaves like a positive electron, even though in actuality it is the lack of existence of an electron at that point, or indeed the impression we get of cold "penetrating" us when in actual fact it is our heat flowing to the lack of heat in the environment.
In the same manner, non-theists lack of belief is seen as a negative rather than a neutral, because the environment you are in is one where belief is pervasive. So a lack seems like a denial until you look at it from a true neutral point of view.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Gary wrote:And what would have happened to the titanic if a million people each turned off a bath taps worth of flooding?
It would still have sunk.
.The point of recycling is that a little bit does help if it is kept up consistently. Just as a little bit of conservation of energy can save a little bit of emissions (and money for that matter) which will overtime lead to a big difference.
Unless the US and China join in this 'conservation' it is a waste of time.
All we in the Uk are doing is saying to the others 'look at us, we are the good guys' we are recycling. America and China are laughing.