| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/24/2009 11:02:52 AM · #176 |
| I'm just going to say that those who posted about my "ought" statement are missing the boat. Their reply is not my intent. However, I have tried too many times to make myself clear over the years and I'm not sure how else to do it. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 11:08:54 AM · #177 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Matthew:
I would be interested in DrAchoo's view on this - if God intervenes in the universe, then it is not simply a matter of philosophy. If God does not intervene, then what relevance does God have? |
For an excellent treatise on this very question, read CS Lewis' Miracles. God does intervene in our universe, but not in a regular or orderly way which would preclude proof through regular and orderly observation. In other words, you can't use a scientific experiment to detect singular events. |
Unpredictable and irregular events may be difficult to assess experimentally, but they would leave evidence, wouldn't they? The creation of a locust from nothing would result in an increase of matter in the universe. So a miracle might be difficult to detect, but not impossible.
If we are to believe that miracles through physical intervention are being performed by alignment to a specific set of principles, shouldn't it be possible to witness the effects of those miracles if not the miracles themselves? For example, we might see a statistical anomaly on life expectancy of strong believers, or economic depression amongst atheist farmers who would be suffering a higher than normal number of locust invasions.
You could always say "and then god made the miracle undetectable" to the end of every miracle story, but it somewhat detracts somewhat from the overall effect. |
See my comment to Shannon. You CAN detect evidence of miracles, but people's preconceived notions will get in the way. The theist will possibly see a miracle while the materialist will ask for more information. The anomalies will be blamed on error or chance or an unknown, but material, phenomenon. |
I guess it depends on the miracle. Pure fiction example here: Lets say a child ran away from home. Parents spend years praying for their son's return. One day, while the are walking downtown, they bump into a homeless young adult, and they reconize their son. Is that a miracle, or pure luck? The Theist will say That God made them take that street a that time to find their son, atheists will say it's pure luck (or statistics, that a runaway kid will probably end up in the street and downtown have the biggest population of homeless). I think that's what people mean when they say that a miracle is imperceptible. You can DETECT the effects miracle, you just can't know, by any means at all, if it's a true miracle or not. That's when faith intervene, the best thing to do in that case, is to thank whoever you pray for (if you do) and don't spend a useless seccond to think about it. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 11:29:18 AM · #178 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm just going to say that those who posted about my "ought" statement are missing the boat. Their reply is not my intent. However, I have tried too many times to make myself clear over the years and I'm not sure how else to do it. |
For the people who are reading into your "ought" statement that an atheist cannot have a moral compass, let me say this:
I take it that you are referring to a sense that the world/universe was created for a reason or a purpose, and that we, collectively, have strayed from the purpose. Obviously an atheist cannot have this particular sense of "ought", and I think that's all you meant...
R. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 11:54:47 AM · #179 |
| I think Robert has hit it better than I did. Any sense that the world "has gone wrong" or "is not as it should be" or "needs to be restored" is, in my opinion, not available to the atheist. Those feelings assume a purpose or goal to our existence and there is no purpose or goal behind a materialistic world. I cannot speak for others, but I have these feelings in a very strong way and this has led me, in part, to reject atheism. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 11:58:22 AM · #180 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think Robert has hit it better than I did. Any sense that the world "has gone wrong" or "is not as it should be" or "needs to be restored" is, in my opinion, not available to the atheist. Those feelings assume a purpose or goal to our existence and there is no purpose or goal behind a materialistic world. I cannot speak for others, but I have these feelings in a very strong way and this has led me, in part, to reject atheism. |
The atheist isn't devoid of all belief, just a belief in a higher, controlling, power. That doesn't mean that the atheist cannot desire, and strive for, certain goals for humanity and the world they find themselves in. They most certainly can have an 'ought', it just doesn't have any ties to a supreme being. This, of course, can range from very selfless goals (the philanthropist), to very selfish goals (the politician ;D) |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 12:21:22 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
The atheist isn't devoid of all belief, just a belief in a higher, controlling, power. That doesn't mean that the atheist cannot desire, and strive for, certain goals for humanity and the world they find themselves in. They most certainly can have an 'ought', it just doesn't have any ties to a supreme being. This, of course, can range from very selfless goals (the philanthropist), to very selfish goals (the politician ;D) |
Somewhat of a contradiction as an atheists do not believe in gods, deities, etc. Suggesting that they believe in anything but pure science would be wrong. The controlling power issue is unique to some, but not all, religions but virtually all religions will focus this power into a "god" figure for ease of interpretation IMO. As an atheist, you would only do selfless things for tangible personal benefit as logic is your religion. You are bound to this mindset otherwise you believe in doing things for some illogical purpose. If you do something selfless for no gain, it is illogical and contradicts atheism's premise. Are you speaking of atheism lite? ;-) |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 12:27:57 PM · #182 |
| The last couple of posts sound more like nihilism than atheism. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 12:28:07 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
The atheist isn't devoid of all belief, just a belief in a higher, controlling, power. That doesn't mean that the atheist cannot desire, and strive for, certain goals for humanity and the world they find themselves in. They most certainly can have an 'ought', it just doesn't have any ties to a supreme being. This, of course, can range from very selfless goals (the philanthropist), to very selfish goals (the politician ;D) |
Somewhat of a contradiction as an atheists do not believe in gods, deities, etc. Suggesting that they believe in anything but pure science would be wrong. The controlling power issue is unique to some, but not all, religions but virtually all religions will focus this power into a "god" figure for ease of interpretation IMO. As an atheist, you would only do selfless things for tangible personal benefit as logic is your religion. You are bound to this mindset otherwise you believe in doing things for some illogical purpose. If you do something selfless for no gain, it is illogical and contradicts atheism's premise. Are you speaking of atheism lite? ;-) |
Whaa? Atheism is not "Belief in only science". It's "no belief in theism". Theism is a belief in a higher power. Wanting to strive for a better world DOES have a personal gain, in that it makes your personal life easier and better to live. Even atheists aren't devoid of wishing to strive for such things. You have a very strange and disturbing view of atheism. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 12:29:40 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Somewhat of a contradiction ... |
No kidding. We're verging towards semantics now; what is a "god", what is a "belief", and so forth. For the purpose of simplifying the argument, it's an either/or: if there is a "greater good", there is a "purpose" ΓΆ€” and if there's a purpose, there's something "more" than materialism. And if one accepts THAT, then one's living in a gray area which "atheism" doesn't well describe, IMO...
Just sayin'...
R.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2009 12:33:34 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Somewhat of a contradiction ... |
No kidding. We're verging towards semantics now; what is a "god", what is a "belief", and so forth. For the purpose of simplifying the argument, it's an either/or: if there is a "greater good", there is a "purpose" ΓΆ€” and if there's a purpose, there's something "more" than materialism. And if one accepts THAT, then one's living in a gray area which "atheism" doesn't well describe, IMO...
Just sayin'...
R. |
This is where the disconnect comes in. The utter shock that a 'greater good' can't be anything other than something supernatural, or more than simple humanity. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 12:40:12 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
As an atheist, you would only do selfless things for tangible personal benefit as logic is your religion. |
You have abstracted it too far. We are all biological beings, the product of our history and surroundings. We are all driven primarily by those things.
Some people give greater or lesser importance to logic and objectivity. Atheists tend to give greater importance, and religious fundamentalists tend to apply less importance to these traits.
NB there are always exceptions. eg DrAchoo tries very hard to be more objective than most, and some people come to atheism on little more than a gut feeling.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2009 12:49:20 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
This is where the disconnect comes in. The utter shock that a 'greater good' can't be anything other than something supernatural, or more than simple humanity. |
I know this is semantics, but a "greater good" by its own definition would be larger than "simple humanity", would it not? ;) |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 12:52:45 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
This is where the disconnect comes in. The utter shock that a 'greater good' can't be anything other than something supernatural, or more than simple humanity. |
I know this is semantics, but a "greater good" by its own definition would be larger than "simple humanity", would it not? ;) |
Not if it simply means that the life you live in the future will be greater and more good than the life you live now ;) |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 12:57:35 PM · #189 |
Abstraction and definition is where the conflict is. The whole argument here seems to be centered around definition and in most cases, the definition is only upheld by dogma. It just doesn't mix and this is where conflict arises. The definition of Christianity and of atheism is rather clear. Any deviation from that literal interpretation bastardizes the meaning for selfish inclusion purposes. Everybody here is right, its all a lie, as we have no clue and maybe never will. Wear the hat that fits and when it doesn't fit anymore, try on a new one. They come in many different colors and shapes. Just stay stay from the acrylic ones, they pill. ;-)
With the complexities we all face in life, any balm that provides clarity is wonderful. When these ideals become belligerent, problems and wars arise. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 01:15:05 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Somewhat of a contradiction ... |
No kidding. We're verging towards semantics now; what is a "god", what is a "belief", and so forth. For the purpose of simplifying the argument, it's an either/or: if there is a "greater good", there is a "purpose" ΓΆ€” and if there's a purpose, there's something "more" than materialism. And if one accepts THAT, then one's living in a gray area which "atheism" doesn't well describe, IMO...
Just sayin'...
R. |
This is where the disconnect comes in. The utter shock that a 'greater good' can't be anything other than something supernatural, or more than simple humanity. |
Nah... I ain't talking supernatural here. "Greater god" delivers "purpose", the purpose is at a "higher level" than materialism, and we now enter a gray area from which we can never escape. Which of course is what Ivo's talking about, and it's where we are basically stuck for our whole lives.
So, that some people choose to "personify" their way out of the gray area, well that isn't surprising is it?
FWIW, I'm about to start reading "The God Delusion" again, Penny brought a copy in with her books and it's on my stack now.
R. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 01:47:44 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
FWIW, I'm about to start reading "The God Delusion" again, Penny brought a copy in with her books and it's on my stack now.
R. |
Run away! :P
Friggin Dawkins... |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 03:04:11 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
As an atheist, you would only do selfless things for tangible personal benefit as logic is your religion. You are bound to this mindset otherwise you believe in doing things for some illogical purpose. If you do something selfless for no gain, it is illogical and contradicts atheism's premise. Are you speaking of atheism lite? ;-) |
Hmm.. wait, what? I don't see the connection between "not believing in god" and "doing only selfless things". When I donate to a charity that is colelcting money for, let's say, funding the research on AIDS, it has nothing to do with God. Being an atheist does not prevent someone from caring for their fellow man. In fact, I think atheists care even more for the survival of humanity since they don't believe in the rapture and apocalypse, so they tend to try and make sure we will be here for a long time (except the baby-boomers... they don't car about anything... :p )
Edited for typo -> Good instead of God
Message edited by author 2009-09-24 15:16:18. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 03:08:06 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
As an atheist, you would only do selfless things for tangible personal benefit as logic is your religion. |
Ironically, this is completely illogical. Disbelief in Zeus or Odin has no connection whatsoever to helping others.
Message edited by author 2009-09-24 15:08:17. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 03:19:52 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Ivo:
As an atheist, you would only do selfless things for tangible personal benefit as logic is your religion. |
Ironically, this is completely illogical. Disbelief in Zeus or Odin has no connection whatsoever to helping others. |
I just have to bring something up which has gone on long enough. Atheism is a belief in no gods. When you claim that I, as a Christian, am 99.9% atheist, you are bastardizing the definition. Clearly I believe in a god and this clearly makes me not an atheist. The dichotomy of "do you believe in a god?" is not a gradation where you are merely one step further to the left than I am. It is a Yes/No proposition and thus the distinction is clear. Just calling this out.
I also think Ivo's point is completely rational. All actions to a materialist should be, at least on some level, self-serving. A completely selfless act would be illogical and against a materialists worldview. Take it to the extreme. How could a materialist ever justify sacrificing their life for a complete stranger? I do not see how such an action could ever compute as something "logical" to do for a materialist. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 03:29:06 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Ivo:
As an atheist, you would only do selfless things for tangible personal benefit as logic is your religion. |
Ironically, this is completely illogical. Disbelief in Zeus or Odin has no connection whatsoever to helping others. |
I just have to bring something up which has gone on long enough. Atheism is a belief in no gods. When you claim that I, as a Christian, am 99.9% atheist, you are bastardizing the definition. Clearly I believe in a god and this clearly makes me not an atheist. The dichotomy of "do you believe in a god?" is not a gradation where you are merely one step further to the left than I am. It is a Yes/No proposition and thus the distinction is clear. Just calling this out.
I also think Ivo's point is completely rational. All actions to a materialist should be, at least on some level, self-serving. A completely selfless act would be illogical and against a materialists worldview. Take it to the extreme. How could a materialist ever justify sacrificing their life for a complete stranger? I do not see how such an action could ever compute as something "logical" to do for a materialist. |
By your definition, a bodyguard (presidential or other) is automaticaly a theist since an atheist would never sacrifice his own life for another being...(or a police officer protecting a civilian from an armed criminal, or a firefighter risking his live in order to save someone traped in a burning fire, or any other example that are easy to come by) |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 03:37:30 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by merchillio:
Originally posted by Ivo:
As an atheist, you would only do selfless things for tangible personal benefit as logic is your religion. You are bound to this mindset otherwise you believe in doing things for some illogical purpose. If you do something selfless for no gain, it is illogical and contradicts atheism's premise. Are you speaking of atheism lite? ;-) |
Hmm.. wait, what? I don't see the connection between "not believing in god" and "doing only selfless things". When I donate to a charity that is colelcting money for, let's say, funding the research on AIDS, it has nothing to do with God. Being an atheist does not prevent someone from caring for their fellow man. In fact, I think atheists care even more for the survival of humanity since they don't believe in the rapture and apocalypse, so they tend to try and make sure we will be here for a long time (except the baby-boomers... they don't car about anything... :p )
Edited for typo -> Good instead of God |
If I were an atheist, I would only give to the cancer society because I feel I may get cancer one day and had better help fund cancer research as a defacto insurance policy. If I had no concern about cancer and I still donated it would not be logical as it offers me no direct benefit. I guess in a way, only those who have no moral consciousness can qualify as true atheists. You cannot be devoid of social consciousness and have morals. There would only be practical and impractical for your own benefit. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 03:40:45 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by merchillio:
By your definition, a bodyguard (presidential or other) is automaticaly a theist since an atheist would never sacrifice his own life for another being...(or a police officer protecting a civilian from an armed criminal, or a firefighter risking his live in order to save someone traped in a burning fire, or any other example that are easy to come by) |
If they were volunteers and received no material compensation at all, you would be correct. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 03:44:01 PM · #198 |
Was I wrong before..it sounds like you guys are attributing nihilist principles to the atheist description?
An atheist does not believe in a god. A nihilist does not believe in anything.
Yes? |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 03:44:10 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by merchillio:
Originally posted by Ivo:
As an atheist, you would only do selfless things for tangible personal benefit as logic is your religion. You are bound to this mindset otherwise you believe in doing things for some illogical purpose. If you do something selfless for no gain, it is illogical and contradicts atheism's premise. Are you speaking of atheism lite? ;-) |
Hmm.. wait, what? I don't see the connection between "not believing in god" and "doing only selfless things". When I donate to a charity that is colelcting money for, let's say, funding the research on AIDS, it has nothing to do with God. Being an atheist does not prevent someone from caring for their fellow man. In fact, I think atheists care even more for the survival of humanity since they don't believe in the rapture and apocalypse, so they tend to try and make sure we will be here for a long time (except the baby-boomers... they don't car about anything... :p )
Edited for typo -> Good instead of God |
If I were an atheist, I would only give to the cancer society because I feel I may get cancer one day and had better help fund cancer research as a defacto insurance policy. If I had no concern about cancer and I still donated it would not be logical as it offers me no direct benefit. I guess in a way, only those who have no moral consciousness can qualify as true atheists. You cannot be devoid of social consciousness and have morals. There would only be practical and impractical for your own benefit. |
How so? I feel that it is my duty as a human to do my best for humanity as a whole, but not because God told me to. I give food to homeless people when I can, not because God told me to, but because I feel everyone is entitled to a little dignity. I try my best to reduce my impact on the environement, to make sure future generations will a planet to live on, not because God told me to. "Sense of social justice" and "belief in God" are very separate things. You have a very bad opinion of atheist my friend.
Message edited by author 2009-09-24 15:45:38. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 03:45:54 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by merchillio:
By your definition, a bodyguard (presidential or other) is automaticaly a theist since an atheist would never sacrifice his own life for another being...(or a police officer protecting a civilian from an armed criminal, or a firefighter risking his live in order to save someone traped in a burning fire, or any other example that are easy to come by) |
If they were volunteers and received no material compensation at all, you would be correct. |
Even then, most of those jobs are still self serving. Giving your life isn't the goal, saving the life is the goal, and one could say that the satisfaction of doing that and the self esteem it generates are the reward, as well as the chemical/phyical high from it. Death is the risk in obtaining the self pleasing aspects. |
|
