Lots of really good court rulings

[moda0306]

Xan,

At least he didn't post a link!!

[Xan]

I would think that a true atheist, by definition, doesn't believe that anything is objectively right or wrong...

I don't understand your statement. I, too, am an atheist, but I clearly know the difference between right and wrong. Objectively or otherwise.

Maybe I'm using "atheist" more narrowly than you are.  Somebody who believes that there's an objective "right" and "wrong" believes in SOME kind of unprovable Truth (like Kshartle and NAP), and at least by some definitions is therefore not an atheist.

[Pointedstick]

For an atheist, the framework of right and wrong; or good and evil, is only a cultural meme.  It's something accidental, something that evolved out of mere chance.  And it isn't universal, because cultures evolved differently.  There is no reference point, so my version of good and evil is just as good as anyone else's.  An honest atheist or naturalist needs to stare into that abyss and embrace it.

[moda0306]

I would think that a true atheist, by definition, doesn't believe that anything is objectively right or wrong...

I don't understand your statement. I, too, am an atheist, but I clearly know the difference between right and wrong. Objectively or otherwise.

For an atheist, the framework of right and wrong; or good and evil, is only a cultural meme.  It's something accidental, something that evolved out of mere chance.  And it isn't universal, because cultures evolved differently.  There is no reference point, so my version of good and evil is just as good as anyone else's.  An honest atheist or naturalist needs to stare into that abyss and embrace it.

Plenty of atheists believe that either:

1) morality is objective, is NOT a factor of culture, and is provable with logic.

Or

2) morality exists and it is objective, but cannot be logically proven because the indicators of its existence are not measurable by science (yet).

[Jan Van]

Why is that the right direction?

If it's going down because the rate of accidental or unwanted pregnancies is going down, that's great.
It it's because of a lack of access, not so good.

Might be the right direction:

Editorial: Access to sex education and birth control yield 40-year low in abortion rate

Ms. Jones, a senior researcher at the institute, said the decline coincided with a steep national drop in pregnancy and birth rates. She added that contraceptive use improved during the study period as “more women and couples were using highly effective long-acting reversible contraceptive methods, such as the IUD.

[Mountaineer]

A working definition of god:  That in which you place your ultimate trust, that which gives you comfort, the source you can always depend upon, that which you pursue above all other pursuits.  Ones god may be fixed or may change with time or situation.

Question:  Can anyone propose a practical situtation where the above definition of god does not apply?

Premise:  Based upon the above definition of god, everyone has a god.

Definition of atheist:  A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Therefore: there are no atheists.

Comments?

... Mountaineer

[Jan Van]

A working definition of god:  That in which you place your ultimate trust, that which gives you comfort, the source you can always depend upon, that which you pursue above all other pursuits.  Ones god may be fixed or may change with time or situation.

Me, Me, Me, MeHappy.

Question:  Can anyone propose a practical situtation where the above definition of god does not apply?

Premise:  Based upon the above definition of god, everyone has a god.

Definition of atheist:  A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Therefore: there are no atheists.

Comments?

... Mountaineer

I'm god???

[kka]

I don't understand your statement. I, too, am an atheist, but I clearly know the difference between right and wrong. Objectively or otherwise.

For an atheist, the framework of right and wrong; or good and evil, is only a cultural meme.  It's something accidental, something that evolved out of mere chance.  And it isn't universal, because cultures evolved differently.  There is no reference point, so my version of good and evil is just as good as anyone else's.  An honest atheist or naturalist needs to stare into that abyss and embrace it.

Plenty of atheists believe that either:

1) morality is objective, is NOT a factor of culture, and is provable with logic.

Or

2) morality exists and it is objective, but cannot be logically proven because the indicators of its existence are not measurable by science (yet).

Perhaps, but an atheist has no basis for such beliefs.
http://www.arn.org/docs/groothuis/dg_greatcloud.htm

[Mountaineer]

A working definition of god:  That in which you place your ultimate trust, that which gives you comfort, the source you can always depend upon, that which you pursue above all other pursuits.  Ones god may be fixed or may change with time or situation.

Me, Me, Me, MeHappy.

Question:  Can anyone propose a practical situtation where the above definition of god does not apply?

Premise:  Based upon the above definition of god, everyone has a god.

Definition of atheist:  A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Therefore: there are no atheists.

Comments?

... Mountaineer

I'm god???

For many, that is certainly true; they are their own god.

... Mountaineer

[Jan Van]

>>  That in which you place your ultimate trust, that which gives you comfort, the source you can always depend upon, that which you pursue above all other pursuits. 

As an American maybe instead of

    Me, Me, Me, MeHappy.

i should have said

  $,$,$,$$$$

[Pointedstick]

I hope you can understand how this whole "who is God?" thing doesn't make a lot of sense if you are coming from the perspective of not believing in God. I get what you mean, but not only is using a religious term to describe the concept awkward to someone who is non-religious, the entire concept of an "ultimate source of truth" is fairly spiritual in nature.

For example, I guess I am kind of an atheist (maybe?), but I'm not sure I can put my ultimate trust in anything. I am certainly high fallible, as is every other human. Logic and reason don't explain everything. Science can't, either. Everything seems like it will fail to be trustworthy in certain contexts.

I guess I believe that there is no source of ultimate truth; that we're all just doing the best we can in a complicated and uncertain world.

Perhaps I would agree with you that many atheists actually believe in the ability of logic or science to ultimately explain everything. But to me, that is just another way of saying that these atheists have faith, just like religious people do--only in different things. They have faith without believing in God.

[Mountaineer]

>>  That in which you place your ultimate trust, that which gives you comfort, the source you can always depend upon, that which you pursue above all other pursuits. 

As an American maybe instead of

    Me, Me, Me, MeHappy.

i should have said

  $,$,$,$$$$

Another very true statement (but you should have used the largest text size available).

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

I hope you can understand how this whole "who is God?" thing doesn't make a lot of sense if you are coming from the perspective of not believing in God. I get what you mean, but not only is using a religious term to describe the concept awkward to someone who is non-religious, the entire concept of an "ultimate source of truth" is fairly spiritual in nature.

For example, I guess I am kind of an atheist (maybe?), but I'm not sure I can put my ultimate trust in anything. I am certainly high fallible, as is every other human. Logic and reason don't explain everything. Science can't, either. Everything seems like it will fail to be trustworthy in certain contexts.

I guess I [currently - added by M.] believe that there is no source of ultimate truth; that we're all just doing the best we can in a complicated and uncertain world.

Perhaps I would agree with you that many atheists actually believe in the ability of logic or science to ultimately explain everything. But to me, that is just another way of saying that these atheists have faith, just like religious people do--only in different things. They have faith without believing in God.

Believe it or not, I understand what you are saying.  And to make a prediction, I have faith your personal journey/quest/questions/worldview will end up much like mine (we are more alike in many ways than you know).  I may not know during this temporal life though however - you can fill me in afterwards 

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

A working definition of god:  That in which you place your ultimate trust, that which gives you comfort, the source you can always depend upon, that which you pursue above all other pursuits.  Ones god may be fixed or may change with time or situation.

Question:  Can anyone propose a practical situtation where the above definition of god does not apply?

Premise:  Based upon the above definition of god, everyone has a god.

Definition of atheist:  A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Therefore: there are no atheists.

Comments?

... Mountaineer

Unless I'm simply mistaken, your definition of god is nowhere near the usual definition of god. (According to google anyway.

So if I change the definition of "apple" to mean poisonous fruits witches concoct to kill pretty girls in town at the disappointment of dwarfs and princes, alike, then "there is no such thing as an apple.


Your definition is a jumbled mess. (No offense).

Perhaps, it's a bit easier, at first, to discuss it more on the basis of a mix of things we put our trust in to get trough life. Physics, first if all.  But everyone does that to some degree. We rarely put "ultimate trust" in anything... Or at least not to a degree that would challenge other important areas of trust (ie, most don't do super dangerous things because they think God will protect them).

In the end, the only thing I can see working is that we "trust our senses."  But this applies to Christians, too. It may not be the "ultimate" form of trust, but trust of your senses is certainly required to have a faith in God that is unmovable. To have that, you have to have 100% faith that your senses are accurate as well...

... Which is to say, you have to have more faith in YOURSELF than many atheists have in themselves, who might just leave a 1% chance or more for the fact that none of us really exist and life is just one big cosmic imaginary game. Or they might think our senses just might be telling us things that don't exist.

So your definition simply serves to obfuscate reality on a couple levels. 

1) it just ain't the right definition.

2) it hides the fact that someone with 100% faith in their God has 100% faith in their ability to accurately interpret reality, and therefore have just as much if not more faith in themselves than most atheists.

... Or at least that's one way to look at it.

[Mountaineer]

For an atheist, the framework of right and wrong; or good and evil, is only a cultural meme.  It's something accidental, something that evolved out of mere chance.  And it isn't universal, because cultures evolved differently.  There is no reference point, so my version of good and evil is just as good as anyone else's.  An honest atheist or naturalist needs to stare into that abyss and embrace it.

Plenty of atheists believe that either:

1) morality is objective, is NOT a factor of culture, and is provable with logic.

Or

2) morality exists and it is objective, but cannot be logically proven because the indicators of its existence are not measurable by science (yet).

Perhaps, but an atheist has no basis for such beliefs.
http://www.arn.org/docs/groothuis/dg_greatcloud.htm

kka,

Interesting link and interesting author.  I had not heard of him before, or of his interest in Blaise Pascal.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

A working definition of god:  That in which you place your ultimate trust, that which gives you comfort, the source you can always depend upon, that which you pursue above all other pursuits.  Ones god may be fixed or may change with time or situation.

Question:  Can anyone propose a practical situtation where the above definition of god does not apply?

Premise:  Based upon the above definition of god, everyone has a god.

Definition of atheist:  A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Therefore: there are no atheists.

Comments?

... Mountaineer

Unless I'm simply mistaken, your definition of god is nowhere near the usual definition of god. (According to google anyway.

That is why I called it "a working definition", not "the definition".

So if I change the definition of "apple" to mean poisonous fruits witches concoct to kill pretty girls in town at the disappointment of dwarfs and princes, alike, then "there is no such thing as an apple.


Your definition is a jumbled mess. (No offense). None taken; sorry if it is a mess to you.  It is not to me.  But both our statements are getting into opinion, not fact.

Perhaps, it's a bit easier, at first, to discuss it more on the basis of a mix of things we put our trust in to get trough life. Physics, first if all.  But everyone does that to some degree. We rarely put "ultimate trust" in anything... Or at least not to a degree that would challenge other important areas of trust (ie, most don't do super dangerous things because they think God will protect them).  God did give us a brain and the ability to think rationally about physics and such. 

In the end, the only thing I can see working is that we "trust our senses."  But this applies to Christians, too. It may not be the "ultimate" form of trust, but trust of your senses is certainly required to have a faith in God that is unmovable. To have that, you have to have 100% faith that your senses are accurate as well...  You appear to be leaving out a large part of what is available for learning, e.g. experience and revelation.  Why do you only consider the cognitive aspects of gaining knowledge?  Serious question.

... Which is to say, you have to have more faith in YOURSELF than many atheists have in themselves, who might just leave a 1% chance or more for the fact that none of us really exist and life is just one big cosmic imaginary game. Or they might think our senses just might be telling us things that don't exist.  Your view begs the question of "why" do I have more faith in anything than any other.  For me, that is an easy answer.  What is the answer for you?

So your definition simply serves to obfuscate reality on a couple levels. 

1) it just ain't the right definition.  For you?

2) it hides the fact that someone with 100% faith in their God has 100% faith in their ability to accurately interpret reality, and therefore have just as much if not more faith in themselves than most atheists.  Your logic seems to me like a muddled mess of confusing faith (noun) with faith (verb) and very reflective of one with deeply entrenched preconceived notions (would that be more confidence that your worldview is correct vs. any other?  If so, why?).

... Or at least that's one way to look at it.  Yep!

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

What do you mean "faith" as a verb?  Could you use that in a sentence for me?



Regarding experience and revelation, I realize people have these all the time.  I have a few friends that believe in ghosts.  One that believes mermaids are real.  These are aspects of our brain's ability to interpret reality no different than anything else, the only exception being that some of these revelations and experiences exist in minds with the same amount of anthropological evidence as the existence as mermaids...

That is to say, none.

What I'm saying is that given the usual definition of faith (the belief or trust in something), a religious person with complete certainty in their religious views also, by logical certainty, have complete faith in their ability to interpret reality.

I don't think most atheists are 100% certain of their position... it's just the way they lean in the absence of better evidence of the existence of God.

So, I think it sort of flips your argument that atheists are self-centered (or that they are their own God) on its ear.


All we have is the ability to observe reality using our senses, observation, empirical evidence, etc.  Included in these "senses" could be some 6th sense, if you will, that channels the Holy Spirit of God or something like that.  Perhaps this is (as of yet) unobservable by science.  Perhaps it exists in the same way a couple of my friends swear they saw a ghost, or believe that the trees are talking to them.

But to believe with 100% certainty in something that only your senses are telling you, but that there is little/no empirical evidence for, is, by logical conclusion, putting 100% faith in your senses.

If I was Abraham, and God told me to kill my son, and I got up to do it, then I have a HUGE amount of faith in my own ability to interpret reality, because I have no proof that God is talking to me.  It could be a schizophrenia.  It could be a demon.  I would have had to have 100% unbreakable faith in my own ability to interpret reality to pick up that knife.

All this is the "noun" version of faith, but this is the same definition I've understood Christians to use, so I don't see the contradiction... especially cuz I'm still wondering what the "verb" version of Faith is...

[Kshartle]

I have a few friends that believe in ghosts.  One that believes mermaids are real. 

I'm reminded of a saying about birds of a feather......

bwaahaha j/k man

I have two friends that really believe in mermaids too.

[moda0306]

I have a few friends that believe in ghosts.  One that believes mermaids are real. 

I'm reminded of a saying about birds of a feather......

bwaahaha j/k man

I have two friends that really believe in mermaids too.

I also have a Mom that believes spanking children is morally permissible, and a bitter e-rival who believes in the non-aggression principal.

Oh the crack-pottery people will allow themselves to get wrapped up in. 

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

What do you mean "faith" as a verb?  Could you use that in a sentence for me?

Sorry, I slipped into the Greek, I should have been clearer ... see last sentence below:

... Mountaineer

Faith in Christianity is based on the work and teachings of Jesus Christ.[12] Christianity declares not to be distinguished by faith, but by the object of its faith. Rather than being passive, faith leads to an active life aligned with the ideals and the example of the life of Jesus. It sees the mystery of God and his grace and seeks to know and become obedient to God. To a Christian, faith is not static but causes one to learn more of God and grow, and has its origin in God.[13]

In Christianity, faith causes change as it seeks a greater understanding of God. Faith is not fideism or simple obedience to a set of rules or statements.[14] Before Christians have faith, they must understand in whom and in what they have faith. Without understanding, there cannot be true faith, and that understanding is built on the foundation of the community of believers, the scriptures and traditions and on the personal experiences of the believer.[15] In English translations of the New Testament, the word faith generally corresponds to the Greek noun ??? (pistis) or the Greek verb ???? (pisteuo), meaning "to trust, to have confidence, faithfulness, to be reliable, to assure".[16]

I see the Greek letters do not transfer to this forum ... the greek was replaced with emoticons.

[Kshartle]

I also have a Mom that believes spanking children is morally permissible, and a bitter e-rival who believes in the non-aggression principal.

If he believes in the non-agression principle why is he so bitter? I'd like to meet this fellow!

[moda0306]

For an atheist, the framework of right and wrong; or good and evil, is only a cultural meme.  It's something accidental, something that evolved out of mere chance.  And it isn't universal, because cultures evolved differently.  There is no reference point, so my version of good and evil is just as good as anyone else's.  An honest atheist or naturalist needs to stare into that abyss and embrace it.

Plenty of atheists believe that either:

1) morality is objective, is NOT a factor of culture, and is provable with logic.

Or

2) morality exists and it is objective, but cannot be logically proven because the indicators of its existence are not measurable by science (yet).

Perhaps, but an atheist has no basis for such beliefs.
http://www.arn.org/docs/groothuis/dg_greatcloud.htm

I am not a philosopher, but I think you're getting things mixed up a little bit.

They interchange the use of the word "rational."  A scientist would hold that all the "accidental" interactions of all the pieces of the universe, while apparently quite "random" and with no "rational" purpose (from a human-will point of view... there is no "REASON" to have 9 planets instead of 3) are still all perfectly "rational" from a cause/effect point of view that one action caused another effect.

This is a thing anarcho-capitalists do a lot.  They take a word that has a few different definitions, and try to use those different definitions simultaneously.

For instance, if you challenge an anarcho-capitalists logical conclusion that we "own" ourselves (defined as the morally valid exclusive use and control of a thing), then they might say, "aha, but look... you just used your brain to take control of your mouth and make an argument... you MUST own yourself to even do that."  Well in this case, the definition of own is "to control."  It has no moral weight... and if it did, that means I "own" a car I just stole from someone else.



But to get to the meat of their argument, that because evolution is an advancement of survival traits, not ones of necessarily understanding TRUTH, that we can't, therefore, rely on our observations to understand Truth.

I would concur that this has some validity.  All logic is built on things that are only provable using some sort of premise that one could challenge by saying "but how do we know the sky is even real or that we even exist."  Logic can only go so deep into understanding reality, because logic uses premises that are only conclusive because of our limited understanding of the world around us.  There could be more.

But there are two directions we can go from here:

1) Because we will never 100% understand the depths of all reality, we just use what we can observe and test, to the best of our ability, because it is the closest thing to a working model we have, or

2) We can believe in an arbitrary being to fill in all the holes of what we don't know, based on a gut feel and biased other people in religious societies telling us what happened.


Remember, #2 involves, at best, trusting our "faith" on certain matters that are unprovable, somewhat more dangerously has us trusting other people's interpretations of reality where holes exist in our own individual ability to use our Faith to understand Truth, and, at worst, actually has us discarding actual observable evidence to make room for Faith.


I really, really don't mind using faith where important decisions need to be made and we have no empirical evidence to tell us something (morality being a good example).  I use a Faith in human (and to some degree, animal) intrinsic value to drive my personal morality.  This is just a gut-feeling I have about how I OUGHT to interact with others.  I use lots of logic, but the foundation of how I interact with others is a FAITH in their consciousness-created-value.

But I don't like filling in the gaps with things that I have no REAL faith about.  I don't have any faith that Jesus is the son of God, or that God even exists.  I don't have faith that ghosts exists.  I don't have faith that what my pastor tells me is true, or that he has a conduit to God, or morality, or whatever can't be proven.  I have a very vague faith that conscious entities have intrinsic value, or at least that I should default to that. 

I really, really don't like having faith actually REPLACE observable fact.  I don't have faith that Lincoln survived his assassination, that the world is flat, or that we didn't evolve from a more rudimentary form of primate (you know... like the skulls indicate). Now perhaps these things are just figmints of our collective imagination, and we're all just electrical signals dreaming up our own existence and history.  Hell, maybe none of you exist, and I'm all that exists, and the world just unfolds around my consciousness, and you are all just parts of my subconscious.

But if THAT is the case, and my sense of reality is THAT f*cked up from what is actually the case in areas that have been empirically proven over and over again given the senses that we do have and share with each other, how am I to trust the other sense... this sense of "faith" in a God (hypothetically), that I may have.  Inventing an omnipotent, omniscient being is a convenient way to fill the holes of reality.  Perhaps, even, it is the ONLY logical way for ANYTHING to have existed (though that sure is a cop-out to quit trying to understand the universe there), but then where does that leave us...

It leaves us with the knowledge that there is a God, and that we do a piss-poor job of interpreting reality with our senses and empirical fact.  My last instinct at this point is going to be to trust just ONE of a thousand different religious interpretation on what God wants, including, perhaps, my own messy feeling of Faith.

End rant .

[moda0306]

I also have a Mom that believes spanking children is morally permissible, and a bitter e-rival who believes in the non-aggression principal.

If he believes in the non-agression principle why is he so bitter? I'd like to meet this fellow!

I meant the rivalry was bitter.

And the NAP doesn't advocate for not being bitter... it just makes sure you don't take that bitterness out on another human in the form of initiation of force.


However, 85% of NAP'ers polled have found that torturing puppies and spewing poison into the atmosphere is a great pressure release valve. 

(This is pure sarcasm in good fun... not trying to spoil the wishes around here that we be civil.  I think you know this, K... but others might see our banter and take it as trying to get things riled up)

[Mountaineer]

I also have a Mom that believes spanking children is morally permissible, and a bitter e-rival who believes in the non-aggression principal.

If he believes in the non-agression principle why is he so bitter? I'd like to meet this fellow!

Bitter?  Maybe rabid is a better word.

... Mountaineer