Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Get Over Your Fear of Atheism
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 121 of 169 (394490)
04-11-2007 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by macaroniandcheese
04-11-2007 12:46 PM


Re: Why I didn't become an atheist
quote:
human conscience being biological does not preclude it's inclusion by a creative god.
Sure, if you want to tack that on there.
The reason I posted that stuff about Damasio's work was because mpb1 wrote:
quote:
Christians say the human conscience came from God - a belief that is based upon Scripture.
Atheists say the human conscience is a result of evolution.
Neither BELIEF is scientifically provable or disprovable.
Disregarding the misuse of the term "scientifically proven", I was simply presenting the evidence that in fact, the human conscience actually is the result of evolution. I was also showing that it isn't merely a BELIEF, but a well-supported conclusion based upon solid evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-11-2007 12:46 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-11-2007 10:04 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 122 of 169 (394493)
04-11-2007 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by mpb1
04-11-2007 2:57 PM


oops
I know you've been getting a lot of replies, so perhaps you missed mine.
quote:
Christians believe the Bible, and therefore believe the human conscience comes from God.
Atheists believe God does not exist.
Either proposition must be accepted by faith, since we do not possess the infinite knowledge required to know if either is true.
Well, before, you said that the idea that one's conscience evolved was unable to be verified scientifically, which is the proper analogy.
My post #102 in this thread addressed this very issue. I'll cut-n-paste from that post here:
Actually, we are quite confident that the human conscience is brain-based. IOW, biological.
Nearly 20 years ago, neurologist Antonio Damasio began conducting studies to test that very concept.
His work was done with people with damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex part of their brains. These people become sociopaths, unable to feel remorse for their actions, nor sympathise with others. Brain scans of people diagnosed with sociopathy (who were born that way, not brain-damaged from trauma) show differences in that same part of their brains compared to non-sociopaths, as well. Replication of his studies and further research in this area of inquiry has largely added to the support for the theory.
Everything else about us has evolved, so why couldn't our brains, including our conscience, have evolved?
So, there is no faith involved in the idea that the human conscience evolved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by mpb1, posted 04-11-2007 2:57 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6156 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 123 of 169 (394494)
04-11-2007 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by macaroniandcheese
04-11-2007 12:35 PM


Re: It's not in the least bit a "pointless exercise".
Okay, then we'll say it's a story to encourage the jews. I was, however, trying to compromise given the context.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-11-2007 12:35 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-11-2007 10:03 PM One_Charred_Wing has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 124 of 169 (394497)
04-11-2007 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by mpb1
04-11-2007 6:11 PM


Re: Why I didn't become an atheist
quote:
Do you think that a recognition of so-called "moral reasoning" or an evolved conscience demands goodness?
THAT IS YOUR ASSUMPTION! NOTHING MORE.
That is not true, as Damasio's work shows.
We evolved to empathise with each other, as would be logical in a highly social species like humans.
quote:
Some, including myself, would argue that our consciences naturally tell us that homosexual intercourse is repulsive, against nature, and immoral.
That's only true if you are afraid of gay people.
Gay people think heterosexual sex is icky for them. It is the most natural thing in the world for gay people to respond sexually to people of the same gender.
quote:
So what atheists REALLY WANT is the ability to decide for themselves what IS and WHAT IS NOT moral - FOR THEMSELVES!
But everyone, ultimately, does this.
Each individual person decides for themselves what is moral. You just decided to adopt the moral code you were indoctrinated with from childhood that is based upon a specific organized superstition.
quote:
Those who want to determine their own morality are among those who resort to atheism. They resent any external force or supreme being telling them what is or is not "right for them."
Er, no. Unbelievers don't "resent" what doesn't exist.
Do you disbelieve Zeus becasue you resented him telling you what is right or wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by mpb1, posted 04-11-2007 6:11 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 125 of 169 (394516)
04-11-2007 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by mpb1
04-11-2007 6:11 PM


Re: Why I didn't become an atheist
Mark, I've been fed that line by fundamentalist Christians repeatedly and consistently for the past 37 years. Not only that, but when questioned they would insist emphatically that it is true. You've even fed us that line.
So now you are tell me that all of you, including yourself, were just lying to me? Or at least were just kidding. Not likely.
As you described earlier, you've set yourselves apart, off in your own little world, so to speak. When our two worlds intersect and we have opportunity for discourse and exchanging ideas and gaining some understanding of each other, it really would help if you'd come out and say what you mean, rather than just jerking our collective chain.
You really should talk with some ex-Christians to find out what they went through and what their religious training was and what the impact of that religious training was. And what it took them to overcome it. Just as you should talk with some atheists to find out what they actually think and believe. Though you've demonstrated that you already "know" all that beforehand and that you're too cock-sure with your blinders firmly in place to be able to hear what they tell you. Plus, I doubt that you would make any such attempt. I have extremely little spare time, but I will start visiting ex-Christian sites to gather such testimonials.
Mark, have you ever served? I ask, because discipline is kind of analogous to morality.
The military depends on its troops being disciplined. A military unit that lacks discipline cannot function, especially not in combat situations. Much of basic training is an effort to instill discipline in the recruits.
Now, for most people who have never served, discipline means Sarge standing over you yelling at you all the time to get you to do what you need to do. That couldn't be further from the truth. If that were really the case, then that military unit would fail miserably. Sarge can't afford to waste his time micromanaging the troops; for one thing, he's got all those junior officers to train. And if discipline was only Sarge yelling you telling you every single thing to do, then the moment Sarge isn't there everything would stop.
For discipline to work, it needs to be internalized. Remember what I said earlier? "Much of basic training is an effort to instill discipline in the recruits." That means that the DIs, TIs, and CCs are trying to get the recruits to learn to discipline themselves. So that the recruits learn to take responsibility for themselves and for their gear and to take care of both in the manner in which they are trained to. That way, Sarge gives the troops direction -- and maybe an occasional reminder -- and the troops move themselves. Even when Sarge isn't there. That's the only way a military unit can function effectively. Of course you will have some troops who lack sufficient discipline; those get to enjoy some special attention from Sarge in the form of extra military instruction, until they do finally shape up or get discharged on an undesirable or less-than-honorable. But it's a grave mistake to assume that discipline can only be imposed from above.
The same thing holds for morality, it needs to be internalized. Like discipline, it cannot be imposed from the outside, but rather it must operate from within. True, those in whom it has not yet been instilled would need special attention from the authorities, including law enforcement. Unfortunately, there's not much choice in what to do with those who fail or refuse to straighten up and fly right; we can't exactly kick them out and back into civilian life, because they're already there. But still, it's a grave mistake to assume that morality can only be imposed from above.
If we are only evolutionary creatures, then there is NO clear and compelling reason why we should be held to any higher standard than that of the animals.
Do you think our advanced intellect demands that we be moral creatures?
Well, we are animals and we do act like animals. We are of the species of animal called Homo Sapiens and we do behave in the manner of that species. Our animal behavior is called "human nature". And so we act like humans. What did you expect? Feathers? What else do you expect us to act like? And please explain why you would have expected that.
And it is not our intellect that demands we be moral creatures. Rather, it is our social systems and our gregariousness. We are social animals, which means that we need to have the natural inclination to form into groups and to want to function within those groups. Part of that is learning the behavior norms of the group and wanting to conform to those norms.
That is what drives us to be moral. To internalize morality. And to do what is right. All of us. Including Christians, as much as they try to disprove it.
I'm running out of time again. Here's a link to an essay I wrote on the subject many years ago: "AN EVOLUTIONARY BASIS FOR MORALITY" at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/religion/morality.html
One of things about specific moral codes is that, because our actions all carry consequences, the effects of specific moral codes do too. If a new moral rule is tried and it has detrimental effects on the society, then either it will get dumped or changed, or that society will deteriorate as a result. If a new moral rule is tried that has beneficial effects, then through the success of the society that rule will establish itself and continue. Thus morality effectively evolves through a form of "cultural evolution".
It would be a mistake to believe that a society can safely make its own arbitrary rules. Any society that attempts to do so will suffer the consequences. The same applies to individuals.
OBTW, that thing about ritual human sacrifices. That's a "religious rules handed down by the gods" thing. That's your schtick, not ours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by mpb1, posted 04-11-2007 6:11 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 126 of 169 (394519)
04-11-2007 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by macaroniandcheese
04-11-2007 12:11 PM


Re: Several Key Points
maybe not, but you sure are (a hostile environment).
Oh, poor baby! I don't know how you poor believers survive. It must be so hard being disagreed with.
yes, but your claim to this ultimate knowledge is baseless.
I don't recall making a claim of ultimate knowledge. Your position appears to be that if I don't know everything with 100% accuracy, I don't know anything at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-11-2007 12:11 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-11-2007 10:12 PM crashfrog has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 127 of 169 (394530)
04-11-2007 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by One_Charred_Wing
04-11-2007 6:37 PM


Re: It's not in the least bit a "pointless exercise".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-11-2007 6:37 PM One_Charred_Wing has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 128 of 169 (394531)
04-11-2007 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by nator
04-11-2007 6:24 PM


Re: Why I didn't become an atheist
i know. i'm just in a mood. comps and all. kill me now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by nator, posted 04-11-2007 6:24 PM nator has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 129 of 169 (394534)
04-11-2007 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by crashfrog
04-11-2007 9:01 PM


Re: Several Key Points
you claim to be able to know that there is no god. and you are terribly aggressive about making sure that you demonstrate your utter disdain for anyone who dares disagree with you. my fiance does the same shit sometimes and it really isn't attractive. god, at least agnostics are honest (and more honest than theists, i must say). but you don't even just disagree with theists. you undermine their very sanity, ability of complex (or basic) thought, and their right to participate in policy. yes, they often do the same to you, but just because you've got a different book in your ass doesn't mean you get to turn it around. it's like feminist misandronists. they're so intellectually irresponsible. and then i make a joke about how much of a pain you can be sometimes and you go off on me like anyone in the world agrees with my theology, like christians just open their doors to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by crashfrog, posted 04-11-2007 9:01 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 04-12-2007 12:27 AM macaroniandcheese has replied
 Message 135 by nator, posted 04-12-2007 2:24 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 130 of 169 (394542)
04-12-2007 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by macaroniandcheese
04-11-2007 10:12 PM


Re: Several Key Points
and you are terribly aggressive about making sure that you demonstrate your utter disdain for anyone who dares disagree with you.
I'm sure the disdain of an anonymous stranger for the intellectually timid is such a hardship to bear.
my fiance does the same shit sometimes and it really isn't attractive.
Try to keep in mind that the difference between me and him is that I couldn't be bothered to care what you find attractive.
god, at least agnostics are honest (and more honest than theists, i must say).
No, they're really not. If they were honest they'd admit that agnostics are atheists; that it's really just two different words for the exact same position - there's no good reasons that support the existence of God.
you undermine their very sanity, ability of complex (or basic) thought, and their right to participate in policy.
Yes. Just as I would undermind the credibility of someone who thought they were Napoleon Bonaparte, the 18th century French general. Such a person shouldn't be put in a position to determine policy for others.
Those who are committed to affirming positions for which there is no evidence aren't suited for policy, either. You seem to think that they'll restrain their believing-without-evidence to strictly religious matters.
I don't. It's the easiest thing in the world to go from believing in God on the basis of no evidence, to believing something like "private accounts are better than Social Security" on the basis of no evidence. People who believe things, adamantly, on the basis of no evidence don't have a temperment suited to developing public policies that affect us all. If I had my way, they wouldn't be in a position to do so.
But, hey, it's not up to me. And I'm not so naive as to assert that there's anybody at all who doesn't believe something on the basis of no evidence. It's a pernicious habit that, once, probably came in handy. But it's maladaptive in our current environment.
then i make a joke about how much of a pain you can be sometimes and you go off on me like anyone in the world agrees with my theology, like christians just open their doors to me.
So what you're saying is, you can make jokes, but you can't take them? I wonder why it is that so many people who rag on others complain so loudly when others rag on them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-11-2007 10:12 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-12-2007 12:33 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 132 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-12-2007 2:03 AM crashfrog has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 131 of 169 (394543)
04-12-2007 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by crashfrog
04-12-2007 12:27 AM


Re: Several Key Points
and somehow you don't see the hostility of carrying on a conversation with someone for whom you have absolutely no respect or consideration based on one idea which may or may not be so adament as you claim. it's like you think you're some great high creature playing a nasty little game with a worm. it's really a horrible thing, and you should really think of better ways to occupy yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 04-12-2007 12:27 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6156 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 132 of 169 (394547)
04-12-2007 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by crashfrog
04-12-2007 12:27 AM


Fallacy check!
You're excellent at debating, Crashfrog--at least, if the objective is to crush the opposition. But the way you're stomping a mudhole in this kid isn't helping the stereotype that atheists are heartless, amoral bastards (and I know from other things that you've said that you aren't really any of these things, although you do suffer the occasional bastard streak )
crashfrog writes:
Yes. Just as I would undermind the credibility of someone who thought they were Napoleon Bonaparte, the 18th century French general. Such a person shouldn't be put in a position to determine policy for others.
Those who are committed to affirming positions for which there is no evidence aren't suited for policy, either. You seem to think that they'll restrain their believing-without-evidence to strictly religious matters.
I don't. It's the easiest thing in the world to go from believing in God on the basis of no evidence, to believing something like "private accounts are better than Social Security" on the basis of no evidence. People who believe things, adamantly, on the basis of no evidence don't have a temperment suited to developing public policies that affect us all. If I had my way, they wouldn't be in a position to do so.
You're making a generalization fallacy here, that all people who 'adamantly' believe in a god are going to believe in other things adamantly despite evidence... 'belief' in the superiority of private accounts is a completely different topic than belief in a higher power. Are you going to say that I'm going to believe in a theological dictatorship just because I hold a belief in a higher power without any objective evidence? How about the ghosts in the Bermuda Triangle?
You asserted here that theists are loose cannons, and are quick to believe anything in disregard to evidence. This is far from universally true; you and I both know that, and you're better than to say something that extreme. Please clarify or retract.

I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 04-12-2007 12:27 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by crashfrog, posted 04-12-2007 11:46 AM One_Charred_Wing has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 133 of 169 (394579)
04-12-2007 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by One_Charred_Wing
04-12-2007 2:03 AM


Re: Fallacy check!
But the way you're stomping a mudhole in this kid isn't helping the stereotype that atheists are heartless, amoral bastards
I don't take nonsense seriously.
I'm sorry if that makes me "heartless", but I don't have a lot of respect for somebody who comes to me with a big box of security blankets and says "here, pick the one you like best - and we'll all promise to pretend like it's true." Well, I'm not going to. If that makes me somebody that you don't want to talk about your security blanket with, great.
People need to grow up. Only children need security blankets. Intellectual immaturity is a pretty dangerous condition in an age when one guy with a suitcase could level a city of millions.
You're making a generalization fallacy here, that all people who 'adamantly' believe in a god are going to believe in other things adamantly despite evidence...
Why wouldn't they? People carry intellectual habits from one area to another.
And I think the evidence of our society bears that out. It's not atheists who go to John Edwards shows. Look at the creationists here. Buzsaw believes in God - and that Big Pharma is out to poison us with pills that cost $100 to cure what you could cure for pennies with a few herbs. Herpeton believes in God - and that the pyramids, when analyzed with the "pyramid inch", contain numerically encoded prophecy about the End Times and the return of Christ. Tal believes in God - and that Iraq, despite the conclusions of every intelligence service in the world, actually had a functional nuclear weapons program and was responsible for the anthrax attacks on various Senate offices following 9/11.
How about the ghosts in the Bermuda Triangle?
I'll bet you that the vast, vast majority of people who believe in the stories about the Bermuda Triangle - as well as the Philadelphia Project, Bigfoot, and that the Moon landing was a hoax - also believe in God.
This is far from universally true
I never claimed that it was universally true. But the sort of person who believes, adamantly, in God - in an actual sky-person who takes a personal interest in your life, not in Spinoza's God, which is really just an expression of admiration for the natural universe - usually believes in a whole host of additional malarkey. (Like "the Bible is a truthful record of Jesus's ministry, authored by God.") And the reverse is almost always true: the people who swallow all that malarkey are almost always members of whatever religion is local. (In English-speaking countries, that would be Christianity.) As I said, it's not the atheists who go to John Edwards shows.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-12-2007 2:03 AM One_Charred_Wing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-12-2007 2:16 PM crashfrog has replied

  
One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6156 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 134 of 169 (394607)
04-12-2007 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by crashfrog
04-12-2007 11:46 AM


Re: Fallacy check!
I don't take nonsense seriously.
I'm sorry if that makes me "heartless", but I don't have a lot of respect for somebody who comes to me with a big box of security blankets and says "here, pick the one you like best - and we'll all promise to pretend like it's true." Well, I'm not going to. If that makes me somebody that you don't want to talk about your security blanket with, great.
And that's your perspective, and that's fine. But the way you're presenting this isn't going to help anybody 'Get Over Their Fear of Atheism'. The way some of these people have been brought up to generalize atheists, they may start to believe that all atheists are forceful about pushing that they're right and everyone else is stupid to believe otherwise.
That's just not true, and in fact one thing I like about atheists is their tendancy to tolerate different opinions... but other theists aren't going to be able to see that through the black eyes you're giving their egos.
People need to grow up. Only children need security blankets. Intellectual immaturity is a pretty dangerous condition in an age when one guy with a suitcase could level a city of millions.
So is intellectual arrogance and hostility towards different perspectives; the latter case is usually what gets these guys with suitcases to level said cities. It certainly won't help them get over their fear of atheism, which was the whole reason that YOU started the topic.
Look at the creationists here.
Oh, and now you use a creationist tactic, so I'll use the usual evolutionist response: You don't know very many creationists, do you?
Scratch that, I'm sure you've known your share. Judging by your attitutde towards them, they've all been stupid. But you said yourself that you know that the stereotype that you seem to be promoting isn't universally true. You're sounding off like it is, and all you're promoting by being that harsh is prejudice rather than your intended point.
Back in my hometown I certainly have qualms with a certain ethnicity, but even though I despise this large group of individuals I know it isn't universally true. Despite my schema, I can still introspect this as prejudice, almost racism. I don't condescend toward people for telling me that not every person of this ethnicity does this or steals that, even though 95% of the ones I've ever known certainly fit every stereotype in the book.
Do you see the connection? Prejudice, whether over race or religion, is prejudice. Again, certainly not going to make atheism less frightening if there's a boogieman with a Road Frog avatar around.
Am I just accusing you of prejudice? Please don't think so. I'm warning you that the unneccessary force of your arguements is turning your arguements here into it. You know why you started this thread, and by the title we can infer (hopefully) the whole reason you started it. The title's intention will never be accomplished for even one person with an attitude like that at the head of the discussion.
Edited by One_Charred_Wing, : Fixed some typos. I'm a grammar nazi. Also clarified the whole 'prejudice' thing so I didn't appear to jump to conclusions.

I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by crashfrog, posted 04-12-2007 11:46 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by crashfrog, posted 04-12-2007 2:34 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied
 Message 138 by crashfrog, posted 04-12-2007 2:52 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 135 of 169 (394610)
04-12-2007 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by macaroniandcheese
04-11-2007 10:12 PM


OT
quote:
my fiance
Hey, congrats, honey!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-11-2007 10:12 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-12-2007 2:26 PM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024