Atheism-o-phobia Part 2

swoleupinya · November 9, 2010, 3:34pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
Regardless of whether you think it is one of the less outlandish claims made in the bible, it is like I said, sufficiently within the physical realm to demand an explanation which can’t be dodged by “I can feel his presence” etc etc and that’s why I asked a christian to elaborate on this point.

[/quote]

We can’t elaborate on it. I’m not sure why this is such an attractive avenue of attack. It’s a faith. We call it as such. You’re not pointing out something new to the faithful. I don’t understand what explanation you want for a virgin birth. I mean, you’re seeking what, a scientific name for an anatomical and physiological anomaly? We don’t and won’t offer any such thing. It is, unashamedly, a supernatural event to us.

And yes, I feel his presence, like many here feel the presence of an existing ‘moral standard.’ Hey, maybe it’s my genome. Maybe I have a predisposition, a biological orientation. Maybe Christian theological understanding flips just the right satisfaction and pleasure switches in the old gray matter. Maybe our castoffs are missing a particular allele distribution, making a sort of self-denying individual who eventually comes out of his atheistic closet. So, you might be stuck with us. Let the reproduction wars begin![/quote]

Here, again, is where we just have to part ways… the basic, fundamental difference between atheists and the religious; whether or not faith is valid as a tool of reasoning or proof.

Incidentally, isn’t it allele patterning, not distribution? Now, I’m gonna’ have to dig through some books haven’t looked at in a long time.

Magicpunch · November 9, 2010, 3:45pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
Regardless of whether you think it is one of the less outlandish claims made in the bible, it is like I said, sufficiently within the physical realm to demand an explanation which can’t be dodged by “I can feel his presence” etc etc and that’s why I asked a christian to elaborate on this point.

[/quote]

We can’t elaborate on it. I’m not sure why this is such an attractive avenue of attack. It’s a faith. We call it as such. You’re not pointing out something new to the faithful. I don’t understand what explanation you want for a virgin birth. I mean, you’re seeking what, a scientific name for an anatomical and physiological anomaly? We don’t and won’t offer any such thing. It is, unashamedly, a supernatural event to us.

And yes, I feel his presence, like many here feel the presence of an existing ‘moral standard.’ Hey, maybe it’s my genome. Maybe I have a predisposition, a biological orientation. Maybe Christian theological understanding flips just the right satisfaction and pleasure switches in the old gray matter. Maybe our castoffs are missing a particular allele distribution, making a sort of self-denying individual who eventually comes out of his atheistic closet. So, you might be stuck with us. Let the reproduction wars begin![/quote]

Fair enough. I do actually understand where you’re coming from. Like I’ve been saying recently, I’m a believing atheist so I see both sides of the argument.

swoleupinya · November 9, 2010, 3:50pm

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Evolution sounds pretty smart. How does it know when it’s advantageous to use morals, and when it should go with the baser instincts?

[/quote]

You really need to read up on evolution. It is evident from your posts that you do not understand the mechanisms of natural selection.
[/quote]

Hey, I’m just going off what the evolutionistswhoarenotmoralrelativists have been claiming evolution is responsible for. [/quote]

Weak cop-out, Cortes.

if this; “evolutionistswhoarenotmoralrelativists” is directed at me, then could you please do us all the service of pointing out where I have claimed that the process of natural selection gives perfect results every time?[/quote]

Pay attention.

I never said you said that. In fact, you stated multiple times that evolution is not perfect.

But then, you also said the following:

Problem is, what you are presenting, as it applies to morality, is not science, it’s faith. And with the fervor that you guys take your pre-ordained, sacrosanct conclusion and then bend all your premises to the breaking point to make certain they never stray from that worldview, well, Evolution (PBTH) starts looking more and more like a religion.

I have been trying to show this for post after post now while you and krsoneeeee feign ignorance to what I am clearly indicating while, ironically, peppering your replies with haughty little book recommendations and supercilious accusations of our ignorance.

The thing I find most amusing, or, perhaps, sad, is that you demand PROOF and EVIDENCE for anyone else’s assertion of religious belief, while you cannot show a single shred of PROOF for your own convictions. And the “evidence” can only ever be used to explain why your conclusion is true.

[/quote]

You are a trip, man. You demand that all who debate you present you with only concise arguments, yet you find it perfectly reasonable to lead us all on what turns out to be a wild goose chase here. You could have come out three pages ago and just said, “Hey, You guys sure seem to be holding to your ideologies with a religious like fervor.”

To which I would have responded, “Well, that’s an ironic characterization.” and, "vociferously defending a theory and providing evidence to support it is hardly akin to defending religious ideology… the obvious difference is that I can provide you with evidence "

As for my “haughty little book recommendations;” I’m offering you sources for supporting evidence to my arguments, genius… exactly what you’re asking me for.

Once again, for your edification, I offer you the following evidence to support my claims:
The fossil record
The human genome and all of the component it shares with those of animals.
The body of work of Darwin
The body of work of Hauser
The body of work of Piaget
The body of work of Richardson

Should I go on?

How about rather than ignoring or dismissing my proofs, you exhibit some level of understanding of them and argue their merit? Your dismissal of the “smart baby” experiments of Piaget earlier in this thread proves only ignorance and a lack of desire to learn.

[/quote]

Oh my God.

I have no problems at all with evolution/natural selection, so you can stop waving it in my face like some kind of trump card. [/quote]

Be an adult here. You’re the one that has been admittedly, willfully portraying a caricature of misunderstanding. Either you understand it or you don’t, and as of yet, you have not shown any understanding of it.

[quote] 2. You’ve provided “proofs?” The baby thing?

Unless you redefine your argument again, you’ve stated that all “morals” are derived from evolution. AND that some morals are “better” than others.

So, you can show me evidence of this “better,” no? (…or, perhaps this is Endgame and you have been patiently waiting to unleash an entire handbag full of “proofs” upon my feeble demands, you sly dog, you.) [/quote]

I think I’ve been careful to provide you with “evidence” not “proofs.” I sincerely apologize if this has not been clear. Another point of clarification; I am opining. Now, I hold my opinion in high regard, in case it is not obvious. But, this does not mean I am not open to changing my opinion.

The reason this discussion appears more like an argument is because you (either through misunderstanding or willful obfuscation) have responded to my opinion as if it is illogical or inconceivable, rather than responding to the evidence I have offered to support it. I will grant you the one exception of presenting the examples of the Aztecs, Nazis, etc… And, I’ve tried my best to respond to your argument here.

I don’t necessarily understand what you are missing about my “better.” I’ve defined the term, I’ve given examples, and I’ve given you a frame of reference in which to compare them.

[quote] 3. Thanks so much for the book recommendations. I know it is very hard for you to believe, but I actually have read a few books in my life, and I am always interested in new ideas from anyone who can present a good argument.

As a matter of fact, I have one for you, too. Now, you seem to have a lot of contradictory ideas, and tend to hold grudges and behave churlishly when someone doesn’t toe your line of thinking that you have yet to define, and the author is not a fan of using logical fallacies to muddy a discussion and cloud inconsistencies in reasoning, as you clearly are, but if you can swallow your troglodytic pride for a few moments you really can expect to learn a little something. Peter Kreeft’s A Refutation Of Moral Relativism, as well as his series on philosophy, are just the books for you. And yeah, I get it, you are not a relativist. It’s just that, I don’t know how, the arguments he employs in the book somehow apply perfectly to the statements you’ve made here so far.

Now, you tell me, how motivated are you to click over to Amazon right now? [/quote]

I’m not going to Amazon.com… but, I will reserve it at the library… on a budget and all. GIve me about 4 weeks, and I will have made a dent in it. I have a lot of reading for school right now, and I’m near the end of another book that is very engaging.

Incidentally, if you get nothing else from me; take a long, hard look in the mirror here. Everything that is so maddening to you about me, may in fact be prominent characteristics of yours. I know that I can come across as an arrogant, condescending prick. I’m not sure that you see this in yourself.

Nope. Not me. I’m not a socialist.

I do have another user name that I’ve stopped using. I dropped it, because it is a username of mine in other places at which I have held some professional notoriety and am not anonymous… and in 1 or 2 instances people from those places may be perusing through here. My primary use of this board was for seeking information on steroid use, and I obviously would prefer to remain anonymous in that respect.

swoleupinya · November 9, 2010, 3:59pm

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
Regardless of whether you think it is one of the less outlandish claims made in the bible, it is like I said, sufficiently within the physical realm to demand an explanation which can’t be dodged by “I can feel his presence” etc etc and that’s why I asked a christian to elaborate on this point.

[/quote]

We can’t elaborate on it. I’m not sure why this is such an attractive avenue of attack. It’s a faith. We call it as such. You’re not pointing out something new to the faithful. I don’t understand what explanation you want for a virgin birth. I mean, you’re seeking what, a scientific name for an anatomical and physiological anomaly? We don’t and won’t offer any such thing. It is, unashamedly, a supernatural event to us.

And yes, I feel his presence, like many here feel the presence of an existing ‘moral standard.’ Hey, maybe it’s my genome. Maybe I have a predisposition, a biological orientation. Maybe Christian theological understanding flips just the right satisfaction and pleasure switches in the old gray matter. Maybe our castoffs are missing a particular allele distribution, making a sort of self-denying individual who eventually comes out of his atheistic closet. So, you might be stuck with us. Let the reproduction wars begin![/quote]

Fair enough. I do actually understand where you’re coming from. Like I’ve been saying recently, I’m a believing atheist so I see both sides of the argument.
[/quote]

Magicpunch,

An aside: I listened to a talk-radio show one night when I was sleeping in my car on the side of a high-desert highway in the Sierras… middle of California. “Lionel” was the host’s name… absolutely hysterical guy.

Anyway, he presented the idea of “belief” as essentially a heuristic trap or a relic of how our brains organize assumptions. It was a fascinating idea and one that I keep meaning to follow up on with some research. I am always careful not to frame arguments or opinions in terms of “belief,” as I am not a fan of the concept.

Cortes · November 9, 2010, 4:09pm

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
Regardless of whether you think it is one of the less outlandish claims made in the bible, it is like I said, sufficiently within the physical realm to demand an explanation which can’t be dodged by “I can feel his presence” etc etc and that’s why I asked a christian to elaborate on this point.

[/quote]

We can’t elaborate on it. I’m not sure why this is such an attractive avenue of attack. It’s a faith. We call it as such. You’re not pointing out something new to the faithful. I don’t understand what explanation you want for a virgin birth. I mean, you’re seeking what, a scientific name for an anatomical and physiological anomaly? We don’t and won’t offer any such thing. It is, unashamedly, a supernatural event to us.

And yes, I feel his presence, like many here feel the presence of an existing ‘moral standard.’ Hey, maybe it’s my genome. Maybe I have a predisposition, a biological orientation. Maybe Christian theological understanding flips just the right satisfaction and pleasure switches in the old gray matter. Maybe our castoffs are missing a particular allele distribution, making a sort of self-denying individual who eventually comes out of his atheistic closet. So, you might be stuck with us. Let the reproduction wars begin![/quote]

Here, again, is where we just have to part ways… the basic, fundamental difference between atheists and the religious; whether or not faith is valid as a tool of reasoning or proof.
[/quote]

No no no no no! This is not where you part ways! You should here begin holding hands like George Bush and Prince Abdullah on a stroll beneath the olive trees (I’ll let you guys decide who gets to be who).

Because this is it, man. You can twist words, try and redefine terms so that you never have to be held accountable, weight your responses ad hominems and personal attacks, attempt to distract with so many red herrings and straw men, and pretend to ignorance when doing so protects your argument, but this is what it’s all about right now.

Faith, baby. You want to tell us that “some moral codes are better than others,” and that “better,” means “inherently advantageous to the survival of the species,” and in the same breath accuse us of working off of faith? Sorry, I’m not buying it, no one else here is buying it, and anybody, first of all you, who claims to be buying it had better damned well be able to show two things:

Evidence for “better.”
Where “better” came from, as the assumption of a “better” end to evolution presupposes a moral obligation to evolve, and if there is some moral obligation prior to evolution, well then, the source cannot be evolution, can it?

No more equivocating, please. You are making strong claims here and in other posts. At the very least, you should be able to justify and defend the words that came from your mouth.

Magicpunch · November 9, 2010, 4:15pm

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
Regardless of whether you think it is one of the less outlandish claims made in the bible, it is like I said, sufficiently within the physical realm to demand an explanation which can’t be dodged by “I can feel his presence” etc etc and that’s why I asked a christian to elaborate on this point.

[/quote]

We can’t elaborate on it. I’m not sure why this is such an attractive avenue of attack. It’s a faith. We call it as such. You’re not pointing out something new to the faithful. I don’t understand what explanation you want for a virgin birth. I mean, you’re seeking what, a scientific name for an anatomical and physiological anomaly? We don’t and won’t offer any such thing. It is, unashamedly, a supernatural event to us.

And yes, I feel his presence, like many here feel the presence of an existing ‘moral standard.’ Hey, maybe it’s my genome. Maybe I have a predisposition, a biological orientation. Maybe Christian theological understanding flips just the right satisfaction and pleasure switches in the old gray matter. Maybe our castoffs are missing a particular allele distribution, making a sort of self-denying individual who eventually comes out of his atheistic closet. So, you might be stuck with us. Let the reproduction wars begin![/quote]

Fair enough. I do actually understand where you’re coming from. Like I’ve been saying recently, I’m a believing atheist so I see both sides of the argument.
[/quote]

Magicpunch,

An aside: I listened to a talk-radio show one night when I was sleeping in my car on the side of a high-desert highway in the Sierras… middle of California. “Lionel” was the host’s name… absolutely hysterical guy.

Anyway, he presented the idea of “belief” as essentially a heuristic trap or a relic of how our brains organize assumptions. It was a fascinating idea and one that I keep meaning to follow up on with some research. I am always careful not to frame arguments or opinions in terms of “belief,” as I am not a fan of the concept. [/quote]

I think I understand what you’re getting at, but it would be helpful if the idea can be fleshed out. If you come across any material on the subject/notion, please let me know about it.

When I say “believing” I’m speaking of course, of the fact that I subscribed to all aspects of islam. Then I found that none of it could be said to hold much water. Or rather, if it did hold water, then so did a lot of other religions. And I had no one way of differentiating.

Now I’m sitting here arguing my “disbelief” in god, yet I have the same fears, same reactions, same instinctive responses (need to pray to a specific construction of god that had been given to me as a child).

Despite this, I consider myself a bit of an atheist. It is quite schizophrenic, and fairly frightening. Despite how I feel before I go to bed, and despite long-held assumptions that some of my relatives are going to heaven and some to hell, I am able to distance myself from these arguments since I understand that there is very little to suggest that these assumptions are correct.

swoleupinya · November 9, 2010, 4:38pm

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
Regardless of whether you think it is one of the less outlandish claims made in the bible, it is like I said, sufficiently within the physical realm to demand an explanation which can’t be dodged by “I can feel his presence” etc etc and that’s why I asked a christian to elaborate on this point.

[/quote]

We can’t elaborate on it. I’m not sure why this is such an attractive avenue of attack. It’s a faith. We call it as such. You’re not pointing out something new to the faithful. I don’t understand what explanation you want for a virgin birth. I mean, you’re seeking what, a scientific name for an anatomical and physiological anomaly? We don’t and won’t offer any such thing. It is, unashamedly, a supernatural event to us.

And yes, I feel his presence, like many here feel the presence of an existing ‘moral standard.’ Hey, maybe it’s my genome. Maybe I have a predisposition, a biological orientation. Maybe Christian theological understanding flips just the right satisfaction and pleasure switches in the old gray matter. Maybe our castoffs are missing a particular allele distribution, making a sort of self-denying individual who eventually comes out of his atheistic closet. So, you might be stuck with us. Let the reproduction wars begin![/quote]

Here, again, is where we just have to part ways… the basic, fundamental difference between atheists and the religious; whether or not faith is valid as a tool of reasoning or proof.
[/quote]

No no no no no! This is not where you part ways! You should here begin holding hands like George Bush and Prince Abdullah on a stroll beneath the olive trees (I’ll let you guys decide who gets to be who).

Because this is it, man. You can twist words, try and redefine terms so that you never have to be held accountable, weight your responses ad hominems and personal attacks, attempt to distract with so many red herrings and straw men, and pretend to ignorance when doing so protects your argument, but this is what it’s all about right now.

Faith, baby. You want to tell us that “some moral codes are better than others,” and that “better,” means “inherently advantageous to the survival of the species,” and in the same breath accuse us of working off of faith? Sorry, I’m not buying it, no one else here is buying it, and anybody, first of all you, who claims to be buying it had better damned well be able to show two things:

Evidence for “better.”
Where “better” came from, as the assumption of a “better” end to evolution presupposes a moral obligation to evolve, and if there is some moral obligation prior to evolution, well then, the source cannot be evolution, can it?

No more equivocating, please. You are making strong claims here and in other posts. At the very least, you should be able to justify and defend the words that came from your mouth.

[/quote]

Okay, I’m confident that I’ve already plainly stated my case in this regard, but I’ll do it here again:

I posit that morals are not externalities, nor are they immutable laws or forces. They are concepts that have been developed to explain certain biological imperatives, tools that are relics of evolution. Even as such, I think we can all agree that the term “moral” is still an effective vocabulary with which to hold a conversation about these idea.
Some moral codes are better than others, and by “better” I mean more advantageous to the survival of the species.
As evidence for “better,” I offer the consistent evolution of cultures through our history into consensus-based and representative forms of government, and away from oligarchies, despotism, etc… I also offer the progressively severe reactions of most cultures to these types of governments.

Now, there is a very logical argument to be made that my rosy presentation of the evolution of cultures may not be born out in the long scale of evolution. It could very well be that we are on the way to evolving into any number of societal forms that would be repugnant to us now, as we hold this conversation. This goes back to something I eluded to a few posts ago… being an atheist is a scary proposition. This also does not in any way negate my initial assumption/opinion that morals are post-de-facto constructs.

To your second question, I will ask you to carefully consider my opinion about the origins of the concept of morality. Your challenge only stands as valid inasmuch as we can agree that morals are external… immutable… etc… I don’t think that we are likely to agree on this. If you agree with my opinion of the origins of morality, then yes. There is a moral obligation to evolve… although, I think you may mean a moral obligation to propagate. Also, accepting my definition/opinion, there would not be any moral obligation prior to evolution.

I don’t expect you to agree with me, but I find your mischaracterization of my position frustrating.

***edit: Consistent is not the right word… persistent may be a better choice.

swoleupinya · November 9, 2010, 4:37pm

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
Regardless of whether you think it is one of the less outlandish claims made in the bible, it is like I said, sufficiently within the physical realm to demand an explanation which can’t be dodged by “I can feel his presence” etc etc and that’s why I asked a christian to elaborate on this point.

[/quote]

We can’t elaborate on it. I’m not sure why this is such an attractive avenue of attack. It’s a faith. We call it as such. You’re not pointing out something new to the faithful. I don’t understand what explanation you want for a virgin birth. I mean, you’re seeking what, a scientific name for an anatomical and physiological anomaly? We don’t and won’t offer any such thing. It is, unashamedly, a supernatural event to us.

And yes, I feel his presence, like many here feel the presence of an existing ‘moral standard.’ Hey, maybe it’s my genome. Maybe I have a predisposition, a biological orientation. Maybe Christian theological understanding flips just the right satisfaction and pleasure switches in the old gray matter. Maybe our castoffs are missing a particular allele distribution, making a sort of self-denying individual who eventually comes out of his atheistic closet. So, you might be stuck with us. Let the reproduction wars begin![/quote]

Fair enough. I do actually understand where you’re coming from. Like I’ve been saying recently, I’m a believing atheist so I see both sides of the argument.
[/quote]

Magicpunch,

An aside: I listened to a talk-radio show one night when I was sleeping in my car on the side of a high-desert highway in the Sierras… middle of California. “Lionel” was the host’s name… absolutely hysterical guy.

Anyway, he presented the idea of “belief” as essentially a heuristic trap or a relic of how our brains organize assumptions. It was a fascinating idea and one that I keep meaning to follow up on with some research. I am always careful not to frame arguments or opinions in terms of “belief,” as I am not a fan of the concept. [/quote]

I think I understand what you’re getting at, but it would be helpful if the idea can be fleshed out. If you come across any material on the subject/notion, please let me know about it.

When I say “believing” I’m speaking of course, of the fact that I subscribed to all aspects of islam. Then I found that none of it could be said to hold much water. Or rather, if it did hold water, then so did a lot of other religions. And I had no one way of differentiating.

Now I’m sitting here arguing my “disbelief” in god, yet I have the same fears, same reactions, same instinctive responses (need to pray to a specific construction of god that had been given to me as a child).

Despite this, I consider myself a bit of an atheist. It is quite schizophrenic, and fairly frightening. Despite how I feel before I go to bed, and despite long-held assumptions that some of my relatives are going to heaven and some to hell, I am able to distance myself from these arguments since I understand that there is very little to suggest that these assumptions are correct.[/quote]

When I embraced my atheism, I didn’t sleep for about 5 days. The end result, though, is that I know that I am as mentally strong as I am capable of being. I also have a shred of a hope of addressing some of the key fears of existence, which I did not have before.

Imagine a world in which all the money, time and mental energy that we waste on supplicating before imagined mythologies was spent on the science of medicine. Is it really unreasonable to suppose that we may have developed some method of immortality by now? The tragedy of it literally brings tears to my eyes every time I consider it.

kamui · November 9, 2010, 4:44pm

swoleupinya

“hypothetical imperative” doesn’t mean its an hypothesis, and may not be true. it means it’s only good/true IF you have already determined a specific goal / interest.

a “categorical imperative” is good in itself, and true no matter what.

[quote][quote]yes, but you end up with an utilitarian definition of morality.

this morality basicaly states that “it’s right to do this or that because it maximize creativity”.
not that it is right or wrong per se.

it’s an hypothetical imperative, not a categorical one.

you are left with nothing to answer to someone who say “i don’t give a fuck about creativity, so it’s not wrong for me”.[/quote]

Welcome to the hard truth of reality.

Try going to sleep at night with this knowledge. [/quote]

ok,
so you’re not an absolutist, nor a relativist.

you are just an amoralist.

what you are saying is that morals can be described, explained (by evolution), maybe even prefered, but that they are not really prescribed.
just enforced.

the superstructures (like morality) are a direct result of the infrastructures (biological and physical processes).
metaphysic is meaningless.
philosophies and religions are nothing more than intellectual constructs.

That was basically Marx’s position.

it’s a consistent position.
but it’s a position that make you an ennemy of society.

all societies are based on these intellectual constructs.
all societies understand themselves through some kind of metaphysics.
and all societies, even secular ones, need a basic philosphy that prescribe some kind of common finality.

it’s a cool mythology you have there.

swoleupinya · November 9, 2010, 4:48pm

[quote]kamui wrote:
swoleupinya

“hypothetical imperative” doesn’t mean its an hypothesis, and may not be true. it means it’s only good/true IF you have already determined a specific goal / interest.

a “categorical imperative” is good in itself, and true no matter what.

[quote][quote]yes, but you end up with an utilitarian definition of morality.

this morality basicaly states that “it’s right to do this or that because it maximize creativity”.
not that it is right or wrong per se.

it’s an hypothetical imperative, not a categorical one.

you are left with nothing to answer to someone who say “i don’t give a fuck about creativity, so it’s not wrong for me”.[/quote]

Welcome to the hard truth of reality.

Try going to sleep at night with this knowledge. [/quote]

ok,
so you’re not an absolutist, nor a relativist.

you are just an amoralist.

what you are saying is that morals can be described, explained (by evolution), maybe even prefered, but that they are not really prescribed.
just enforced.

the superstructures (like morality) are a direct result of the infrastructures (biological and physical processes).
metaphysic is meaningless.
philosophies and religions are nothing more than intellectual constructs.

That was basically Marx’s position.

it’s a consistent position.
but it’s a position that make you an ennemy of society.

all societies are based on these intellectual constructs.
all societies understand themselves through some kind of metaphysics.
and all societies, even secular ones, need a basic philosphy that prescribe some kind of common finality.

[/quote]

Amoralist may actually be a valid description of my position. I will have to consider this.

I also had not considered how much I share with Marx in this regard. History bores me, so I haven’t studied it as much as I probably would like to able to say I have. Thank you for pointing me in a direction where I can learn some more.

I don’t necessarily disagree that all societies understand themselves through some sort of metaphysics, but I would like to think that it is not necessary. I would have to be a better student of history to adequately defend such a claim, though.

And, I don’t consider myself an enemy of society. This wouldn’t be the first time such a label has been levied upon me, though

swoleupinya · November 9, 2010, 4:52pm

[quote]

it’s a cool mythology you have there.[/quote]

Isn’t it, though?

Genome is a motherfucker

Cortes · November 9, 2010, 5:05pm

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

How about rather than ignoring or dismissing my proofs, you exhibit some level of understanding of them and argue their merit? Your dismissal of the “smart baby” experiments of Piaget earlier in this thread proves only ignorance and a lack of desire to learn.

Oh my God.

I have no problems at all with evolution/natural selection, so you can stop waving it in my face like some kind of trump card.

Be an adult here. You’re the one that has been admittedly, willfully portraying a caricature of misunderstanding. Either you understand it or you don’t, and as of yet, you have not shown any understanding of it.

You’ve provided “proofs?” The baby thing?

Unless you redefine your argument again, you’ve stated that all “morals” are derived from evolution. AND that some morals are “better” than others.

So, you can show me evidence of this “better,” no? (…or, perhaps this is Endgame and you have been patiently waiting to unleash an entire handbag full of “proofs” upon my feeble demands, you sly dog, you.)

I think I’ve been careful to provide you with “evidence” not “proofs.”
[/quote]

“Proofs” was your word, I left it up at the top of this page. Don’t worry, I don’t care, as I don’t subscribe to the fallacy of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque.

Dude, it’s the internet. Trust me, I don’t take any of this too seriously. I am perfectly aware of what an asshole I am being. No mirrors necessary.

I will say one thing, despite your criminal overuse of logical fallacies, I do appreciate that you are able use the English language correctly and adeptly. If there really is a Moral Law, it is my firm belief the current trend toward the mangling and devaluation of our common tongue is in stark violation of it. Hell, we might even be getting along fabulously, had be started at a less contentious topic. Like steroids, for instance. Indeed, you might want to be a bit nicer to me I do have a few friends and know a little something about that world. You never know, maybe I could be a great source of help to you. Or, maybe not, and I don’t know nothing about nothing.

Magicpunch · November 9, 2010, 5:02pm

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
Regardless of whether you think it is one of the less outlandish claims made in the bible, it is like I said, sufficiently within the physical realm to demand an explanation which can’t be dodged by “I can feel his presence” etc etc and that’s why I asked a christian to elaborate on this point.

[/quote]

We can’t elaborate on it. I’m not sure why this is such an attractive avenue of attack. It’s a faith. We call it as such. You’re not pointing out something new to the faithful. I don’t understand what explanation you want for a virgin birth. I mean, you’re seeking what, a scientific name for an anatomical and physiological anomaly? We don’t and won’t offer any such thing. It is, unashamedly, a supernatural event to us.

And yes, I feel his presence, like many here feel the presence of an existing ‘moral standard.’ Hey, maybe it’s my genome. Maybe I have a predisposition, a biological orientation. Maybe Christian theological understanding flips just the right satisfaction and pleasure switches in the old gray matter. Maybe our castoffs are missing a particular allele distribution, making a sort of self-denying individual who eventually comes out of his atheistic closet. So, you might be stuck with us. Let the reproduction wars begin![/quote]

Fair enough. I do actually understand where you’re coming from. Like I’ve been saying recently, I’m a believing atheist so I see both sides of the argument.
[/quote]

Magicpunch,

An aside: I listened to a talk-radio show one night when I was sleeping in my car on the side of a high-desert highway in the Sierras… middle of California. “Lionel” was the host’s name… absolutely hysterical guy.

Anyway, he presented the idea of “belief” as essentially a heuristic trap or a relic of how our brains organize assumptions. It was a fascinating idea and one that I keep meaning to follow up on with some research. I am always careful not to frame arguments or opinions in terms of “belief,” as I am not a fan of the concept. [/quote]

I think I understand what you’re getting at, but it would be helpful if the idea can be fleshed out. If you come across any material on the subject/notion, please let me know about it.

When I say “believing” I’m speaking of course, of the fact that I subscribed to all aspects of islam. Then I found that none of it could be said to hold much water. Or rather, if it did hold water, then so did a lot of other religions. And I had no one way of differentiating.

Now I’m sitting here arguing my “disbelief” in god, yet I have the same fears, same reactions, same instinctive responses (need to pray to a specific construction of god that had been given to me as a child).

Despite this, I consider myself a bit of an atheist. It is quite schizophrenic, and fairly frightening. Despite how I feel before I go to bed, and despite long-held assumptions that some of my relatives are going to heaven and some to hell, I am able to distance myself from these arguments since I understand that there is very little to suggest that these assumptions are correct.[/quote]

When I embraced my atheism, I didn’t sleep for about 5 days. The end result, though, is that I know that I am as mentally strong as I am capable of being. I also have a shred of a hope of addressing some of the key fears of existence, which I did not have before.

Imagine a world in which all the money, time and mental energy that we waste on supplicating before imagined mythologies was spent on the science of medicine. Is it really unreasonable to suppose that we may have developed some method of immortality by now? The tragedy of it literally brings tears to my eyes every time I consider it. [/quote]

I felt the same, to begin with. I felt invigorated, and finally broached a lot of topics and taboos with a critical eye that I hadn’t had before.

Unfortunately, those old fears (hell etc) didn’t quite disappear. After the honeymoon period was over, I was back to being wracked with doubt regarding absolutely everything in the world.

A kind of analysis paralysis took over and can periodically return. Is this because I think there is no point to life? Absolutely not. Is this because there’s that habitual, life-long voice in the back of my head which says “you’re going to hell?” - far more likely.

This is one of my gripes with religion, and I think I have to settle for the fact that I might never be able let go of this baggage.

I would say I’m about 3 years an atheist, and that part of me is competing with over 20 years of being a theist.

swoleupinya · November 9, 2010, 5:04pm

No… I definitely know that you know something about some things. I’ve studied those threads.

I doubt I can be much nicer. It’s why my wife only lets me argue on the internet once or twice a year. I am completely incapable of coming across as anything other than an asshole.

Crap! I just realized that I am a subject of a higher moral authority… my wife!

Now that we’ve all had an internet hug, perhaps you could point out some of these logical fallacies that you accuse me of?

Magicpunch · November 9, 2010, 5:04pm

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

How about rather than ignoring or dismissing my proofs, you exhibit some level of understanding of them and argue their merit? Your dismissal of the “smart baby” experiments of Piaget earlier in this thread proves only ignorance and a lack of desire to learn.

[/quote]

Oh my God.

I have no problems at all with evolution/natural selection, so you can stop waving it in my face like some kind of trump card. [/quote]

Be an adult here. You’re the one that has been admittedly, willfully portraying a caricature of misunderstanding. Either you understand it or you don’t, and as of yet, you have not shown any understanding of it.

[quote] 2. You’ve provided “proofs?” The baby thing?

Unless you redefine your argument again, you’ve stated that all “morals” are derived from evolution. AND that some morals are “better” than others.

So, you can show me evidence of this “better,” no? (…or, perhaps this is Endgame and you have been patiently waiting to unleash an entire handbag full of “proofs” upon my feeble demands, you sly dog, you.) [/quote]

I think I’ve been careful to provide you with “evidence” not “proofs.”
[/quote]

“Proofs” was your word, I left it up at the top of this page. Don’t worry, I don’t care, as I don’t subscribe to the fallacy of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque.

Dude, it’s the internet. Trust me, I don’t take any of this too seriously. I am perfectly aware of what an asshole I am being. No mirrors necessary.

I will say one thing, despite your criminal overuse of logical fallacies, I do appreciate that you are able use the English language correctly and adeptly. If there really is a Moral Law, it is my firm belief the current trend toward the mangling and devaluation of our common tongue is in stark violation of it. Hell, we might even be getting along fabulously, had be started at a less contentious topic. Like steroids, for instance. Indeed, you might want to be a bit nicer to me I do have a few friends and know a little something about that world. You never know, maybe I could be a great source of help to you. Or, maybe not, and I don’t know nothing about nothing. :)[/quote]

If that’s you in your avatar, then I might just have to join your religion. Where do I sign up?

Cortes · November 9, 2010, 5:07pm

Crap. I was frantically trying to fix my clusterfucking of the quote tags and you guys have already replied.

Sorry.

swoleupinya · November 9, 2010, 5:07pm