The Appeal Of Atheism?

[Tchild2]

I am not looking to test or debate. I am just trying to better understand your way of thinking. What is your notion of "life"--human life in particular?

And, do you ascribe greater meaning to "living" entities than you do to non-living entities like robots? If so, why?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well of course I ascribe greater meaning to living entities. The sun shining through the leaves of trees on a windy day makes movements with the light dancing and moving on the ground that might look animated and alive, but I know they are nothing but shadows, the same as a mechanical device that has been dressed up to look animal or human like with animal or human-like movements. Any "aliveness" is nothing more than qualities the brain uses to create and identify familiarity and patterns in its surroundings.

I don't really know where my empathy towards other living creatures arises. It is inconsistent because I can watch amazed at a colony of ants with no intent to hurt them, while I chomp down on a cheeseburger that cost the life of large mammal. My educated guess is my "humanness" is a product of millions of years of evolutionary change that we see now in the complexity of the human animal. Monkeys experience joy

Lately I have been fascinated by the evolutionary process of man and our early ape-like ancestors. The more I read, the more I realize that man isn't really all that special in the grand scheme of things. We are different, we have mental faculties of reason, logic and language that seemingly superpass all the other living species on the planet, but that in and of itself does not change the fact that we are products of the earth and its evolutionary processes, and are subject to the same conditions that other species are subject to. Long before the earth is roasted by the sun in a few billion years, mankind will be long gone.

[noob123]

Why are people sad when someone they love goes on a long trip?

Why are people sad when they can't enjoy playing with "non-living entities like robots" for a period?

edit: I can ask these quetions all day.

[Tarski]

From time to time I watch Robot Wars on TV, and I have yet to experience any sense of moral outrage when a hammer blade drives through an opponents chassi and kills it dead.

I experience something quite different when I see similar things occur human to human.

Why do you suppose that is?

I hope it's not because you think humans have some special transparent stuff inside them (spirit, ectoplasm, pure intelligence, elan vital ...etc.)

For me it is because humans have plans, hopes, and other things with which I identify and understand.

On the other hand, I would feel moral outrage if someone trashed Eric Clapton's historic guitar "blackie".

I would also feel outrage at the destruction of a sufficiently sophisticated artificially intelligent robot should it exibit human-like behavior. No such exist right now and may never but in principle, it is important to note that we do not obtain our value by possesion of some magical wonder fluid but by our deep and unfathomable place in the social web of human concerns, hopes and plans.

There is a reason you had to put "aliveness" is scare quotes. You don't know what you are talking about.

[wenglund]

If you believe in an after life that is so wonderful.... why are you so sad when one dies?

I am sad when I can't be with family and friends for a season, though I balance that sadness with gratitude for the times we have been together and the faith that we will once again be together.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Well of course I ascribe greater meaning to living entities. The sun shining through the leaves of trees on a windy day makes movements with the light dancing and moving on the ground that might look animated and alive, but I know they are nothing but shadows, the same as a mechanical device that has been dressed up to look animal or human like with animal or human-like movements. Any "aliveness" is nothing more than qualities the brain uses to create and identify familiarity and patterns in its surroundings.

I don't really know where my empathy towards other living creatures arises. It is inconsistent because I can watch amazed at a colony of ants with no intent to hurt them, while I chomp down on a cheeseburger that cost the life of large mammal. My educated guess is my "humanness" is a product of millions of years of evolutionary change that we see now in the complexity of the human animal. Monkeys experience joy

Lately I have been fascinated by the evolutionary process of man and our early ape-like ancestors. The more I read, the more I realize that man isn't really all that special in the grand scheme of things. We are different, we have mental faculties of reason, logic and language that seemingly superpass all the other living species on the planet, but that in and of itself does not change the fact that we are products of the earth and its evolutionary processes, and are subject to the same conditions that other species are subject to. Long before the earth is roasted by the sun in a few billion years, mankind will be long gone.

Interesting. I appreciate you sharing your perspective. It is not a particularly satisfying way of thinking for me, but I can respect that it works for you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Why are people sad when they can't enjoy playing with "non-living entities like robots" for a period?

?

edit: I can ask these quetions all day.

Are you assuming there is an equivolency between the sadness people may experience upon the death of a loved-one and the sadness when they are not able to playing with "non-living entities like robots" for a period?

edit: but can you answer questions like these all day?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I hope it's not because you think humans have some special transparent stuff inside them (spirit, ectoplasm, pure intelligence, elan vital ...etc.)

For me it is because humans have plans, hopes, and other things with which I identify and understand.

So, for you, "life" and its value amounts to nothing more than humans having day planners?

On the other hand, I would feel moral outrage if someone trashed Eric Clapton's historic guitar "blackie".

I would also feel outrage at the destruction of a sufficiently sophisticated artificially intelligent robot should it exibit human-like behavior. No such exist right now and may never but in principle it is important to note that we do not obtain our value by possesion of some magical wonder fluid but by our deep and unfathomable place in the social web of human concerns, hopes and plans.

So, were you to have a Star Trek: Next Generation-like experience, your feelings would be equivolent were Data to have his head lobbed off by a lazer gun as were the same to happen to young Wesley?

There is a reason you had to put "aliveness" is scare quotes. You don't know what you are talking about.

I put it in quote marks because I was quoting Tchild2's quote. I also put it in quote marks because I figured that he and others may have a different meaning for the term than me. How anyone could think that is "scary" is beyond me, but I can respect that you somehow did.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[noob123]

Are you assuming there is an equivolency between the sadness people may experience upon the death of a loved-one and the sadness when they are not able to playing with "non-living entities like robots" for a period?

edit: but can you answer questions like these all day?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You know what, you're right... making that comparison is silly. There are different levels of enjoyment and experience felt with either.

But so is this:

"From time to time I watch Robot Wars on TV, and I have yet to experience any sense of moral outrage when a hammer blade drives through an opponents chassi and kills it dead.

I experience something quite different when I see similar things occur human to human.

Why do you suppose that is?

Am I alone in thinking this way?

Could it be that we all (with the exception of pathological killers) actual view humankind as more than just a purely bio-mechanical entity?

Thanks, -Wade Englund- "

This is a really stupid comparison.

Do we really need to argue it?

Or still after carefully thinking about it, do I need to list of reasoning why?

(I promise this time not ask a question on a question)

So recind?

[BarrelO'Mangoes]

... even when some of us espouse a philosophy in which humankind are exactly no more than just purely bio-mechanical entities?

Just to make the point explicit.

You seriously just don't get what atheism is, do you? It's really rather simple and that it is beyond you is astounding.

Atheism merely means lack of belief in God/gods. That's it! An atheist can think that people are green jello filled beings, aliens, illusions, a dream --- anything they want! Atheism does not tell people what to think.

Does lack of Thor belief make you see humans in a certain way?

[wenglund]

This is a really stupid comparison.

Do we really need to argue it?

Or still after carefully thinking about it, do I need to list of reasoning why?

(I promise this time not ask a question on a question)

So recind?

If my intent was to argue, then you may have a point. However, it wasn't. Instead, as explicitly mentioned, my intent was to clarify and better understand the atheistic point of view. My question provided a shorthand means to that end, and thus was not stupid. Sorry it flew right over your head.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[BarrelO'Mangoes]

From time to time I watch Robot Wars on TV, and I have yet to experience any sense of moral outrage when a hammer blade drives through an opponents chassi and kills it dead.

I experience something quite different when I see similar things occur human to human.

Why do you suppose that is?

Because you have mirror neurons and thousands of years of brain evolution behind you that allow you to feel empathy. Of course the more closely related one is to the other human, usually, the more moral outrage or sadness is that occurs. This is why people aren't concerned in combat too often for the enemy rather for the soldiers at their side. Why do you think this is, Wade? Is it because God wants us to have clan mentality or is it a part of clan mentality that has existed even today where we take care or our own and see those that are "different" as not quite human?

Am I alone in thinking this way?

Nope.

Could it be that we all (with the exception of pathological killers) actual view humankind as more than just a purely bio-mechanical entity?

Sure.

[noob123]

If my intent was to argue, then you may have a point. However, it wasn't. Instead, as explicitly mentioned, my intent was to clarify and better understand the atheistic point of view. My question provided a shorthand means to that end, and thus was not stupid. Sorry it flew right over your head.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You have made a point of arguing through most of this thread, so it was natural I would assume you were still arguing. Point taken, that you were only trying to better under the atheistic point of view. Don't be sorry that you feel that it went right over my head. I'm sorry you couldn't adequately express yourself.

I believe BarrelO'Mangoes answered your question, go pay attention to her.

Now what end were you looking for with your question?

[Tarski]

So, for you, "life" and its value amounts to nothing more than humans having day planners?

OBviously not since having a day planner is not the same as having hope, dreams, goals, desire, families etc.

But you knew that.

But what is a sillier criterion, having the ability to have plans or having some transparent stuff in you?

So, were you to have a Star Trek: Next Generation-like experience, your feelings would be equivolent were Data to have his head lobbed off by a lazer gun as were the same to happen to young Wesley?

Yes. Maybe I would rather Welsey get his head lopped off if I had to choose. LOL

If one accepts the premise that a being such as Data could exist, then of course the feelings would be equivalent.

You know some people used to think blacks weren't quite human and Descartes thought animals were "just" machines with no real feelings (whatever that means).

Weg, you ARE a biological "machine" - a physical structure. You just underestimate, wildy, vastly underestimate what a physical structure can be. Just because man-made information processing machines are clunky, rigid and totally inhuman doesn't limit what a material structure can be in principle. That's just a failure of imagination not a failure of real possibility.

You are made of information bearing matter/fields and nothing more--it need not be more because it is capable of anything you have ever imagined, all the stuff you think spirit is there for, matter/fields can do just fine. Postulating more stuff inside you doesn't help anything.

It would just be more stuff with more properties making what you are possible. Intelligence is the functioning of the healthy embodied brain against the background of sociality. Intelligence is not some magical transparent ghostly stuff. That common picture really makes no sense on close inspection.

[wenglund]

Because you have mirror neurons and thousands of years of brain evolution behind you that allow you to feel empathy. Of course the more closely related one is to the other human, usually, the more moral outrage or sadness is that occurs. This is why people aren't concerned in combat too often for the enemy rather for the soldiers at their side. Why do you think this is, Wade? Is it because God wants us to have clan mentality or is it a part of clan mentality that has existed even today where we take care or our own and see those that are "different" as not quite human?

That may be a factor, but not an entirely satisfactory answer in my case, though I can respect that it may be satisfactory to you. For me, it goes beyond empathy.

My concern in combat and the side that I choose in relation thereto, isn't a function of empathy, but rather the value I place on certain generalized principles (liberty, freedom, peace, safety, etc.) in relation to individual human life and which give added meaning to human life.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tarski]

My concern in combat and the side that I choose in relation thereto, isn't a function of empathy, but rather the value I place on certain generalized principles (liberty, freedom, peace, safety, etc.) in relation to individual human life and which give added meaning to human life.

There is no reason that a purely physical entity (like me) couldn't value those things even more than you even while not believing in God (like Einstien, Hawking, Sagan, Asimov, Voltaire, Gould, Watson (DNA), Bill Gates, and numerous nobel prize winners, pulitzer prize winners and social activists).

No ghosts needed.

[BarrelO'Mangoes]

That may be a factor, but not an entirely satisfactory answer in my case, though I can respect that it may be satisfactory to you. For me, it goes beyond empathy.

Well, what is it precisely? I thought you were asking why you would be upset at seeing a human being hurt rather than a robot being hurt.

What is it that makes one cringe in pain when another human feels pain? What is it that makes us rush to the side of someone that has fallen? What is it that makes laughter spread as if infectious? What is it that makes us see another human and know what they are experiencing? I don't know what you're getting at, I suppose. What is it beyond empathy?

My concern in combat and the side that I choose in relation thereto, isn't a function of empathy, but rather the value I place on certain generalized principles (liberty, freedom, peace, safety, etc.) in relation to individual human life and which give added meaning to human life.

I'm not talking about what side we individually take. I'm talking about the world over where there is fighting amongst people and they view the enemy in a different way than they view their own "tribe", "countrymen", or families.

Btw, my concern in going to war is the same as yours.

[wenglund]

OBviously not since having a day planner is not the same as having hope, dreams, goals, desire, families etc.

But you knew that.

But what is a sillier criterion, having the ability to have plans or having some transparent stuff in you?

I suppose "silly" is in the eye of the beholder.

Yes. Maybe I would rather Welsey get his head lopped off if I had to choose. LOL

If one accepts the premise that a being such as Data could exist, then of course the feelings would be equivalent.

You know some people used to think blacks weren't quite human and Descartes thought animals were "just" machines with no real feelings (whatever that means).

I can't speak for the "some people" you had in mind, or Descartes, but in my mind I draw a preferential distinction between ARTIFICIAL intelligence and "living" intelligence--particularly when it comes to matters of love, and the death of loved-ones. Were I faced with the decision of having to save from certain death either Data or Wesley, it would be a no-brainer for me. I would chose Wesley over Data any day.

But, I have known some people who put a premium on their "things", even over the "life" of others. So, I can at least somewhat understand your point of view.

Weg, you ARE a biological "machine" - a physical structure. You just underestimate, wildy, vastly underestimate what a physical structure can be. Just because man-made information processing machines are clunky, rigid and totally inhuman doesn't limit what a material structure can be in principle. That's just a failure of imagination not a failure of real possibility.

Well, Tar, you evidently have some amazing mind-reading skills that certainly defy the imagination. I hadn't known that I had put, let alone stated, any supposed limitation on what a material structure can be. What limits on real posibilities in that regard have you imagined of me?

You are made of information bearing matter/fields and nothing more--it need not be more because it is capable of anything you have ever imagined, all the stuff you think spirit is there for, matter/fields can do just fine. Postulating more stuff inside you doesn't help anything.

I understand that is your secular belief/doctrine, but stating it ever so dogmatically is really what doesn't help.

It would just be more stuff with more properties making what you are possible. Intelligence is the functioning of the healthy embodied brain against the background of sociality. Intelligence is not some magical transparent ghostly stuff. That common picture really makes no sense on close inspection.

It depends on who is doing the inspecting and what it is that they are doing the inspecting with.

To your mind, and in regards to each bio-mechanical entity called human, at what point does "life" (as you understand it) begin, what does it consists of, and how does it end?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Well, what is it precisely? I thought you were asking why you would be upset at seeing a human being hurt rather than a robot being hurt.

What is it that makes one cringe in pain when another human feels pain? What is it that makes us rush to the side of someone that has fallen? What is it that makes laughter spread as if infectious? What is it that makes us see another human and know what they are experiencing? I don't know what you're getting at, I suppose. What is it beyond empathy?

For me, it is the spirits within each human which share a common parentage in God. It is about "family" and "love".

I'm not talking about what side we individually take. I'm talking about the world over where there is fighting amongst people and they view the enemy in a different way than they view their own "tribe", "countrymen", or families.

Then you are not talking that much about me. I am not about boarders or divisions except as they relate to the promotion of the principles I mentioned previously. My thinking tends to be more inclusionary than exclusionary.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tarski]

To your mind, and in regards to each bio-mechanical entity called human, at what point does "life" (as you understand it) begin, what does it consists of, and how does it end?

There is no fact of the matter. It is like asking when exactly is a mountain high enough to be a big mountain rather than a little hill.

There is no charmed circle with precise boundaries. A fertilized ovum is not a person and a baby is. What happens in between is a gradual accrual of more and more relevant criteria and a large landscape of arguable grey area (albeit emotionally charged). (Same with increasingly complex and human-like androids in some hypothetical sci-fi scenario)

[BarrelO'Mangoes]

For me, it is the spirits within each human which share a common parentage in God. It is about "family" and "love".

Amazingly, I view humanity as being bonded by family and love (I wish there was more love to be exact!), as well. Yet, I don't believe in a higher power.

Then you are not talking that much about me. I am not about boarders or divisions except as they relate to the promotion of the principles I mentioned previously. My thinking tends to be more inclusionary than exclusionary.

Of course I wasn't talking about you individually. I was answering a question as to how I understand human tendencies for empathy and why we display them as we do. I, too, am likely to view those that are similar to me in some respect in much the same fashion as to those that are different from me. No doubt this has to do with being adopted as well as growing up in a foreign land where I was the only pale skinned, blonde haired, non-fluent Japanese speaking person for miles. Being the "outsider" certainly put humanity into perspective, for me.

My point, Wade, was merely attempting to explain why we react to pain in humans differently than when do to things that are unable to feel or that we don't relate to in some way. I was talking about our evolutionary tendencies to tend to those we identify with and particularly family versus those removed from us. Was I not clear?

[Tarski]

Well, Tar, you evidently have some amazing mind-reading skills that certainly defy the imagination. I hadn't known that I had put, let alone stated, any supposed limitation on what a material structure can be. What limits on real posibilities in that regard have you imagined of me?

OK, then if you can in fact imagine how a purely physical structure can be all that is a human being and if you can actually, like me, imagine how a physical being could be truly intelligent, then what is your motivation for continually speaking of the bio-physical in denigrating terms as if such could never be more than a glorified toaster? Why postuate "spirit" and why feel so free to kill Mr. Data in the sci-fi hypothetical?

[Mudcat]

OK, then if you can in fact imagine how a purely physical structure can be all that is a human being and if you can actually, like me, imagine how a physical being could be truly intelligent, then what is your motivation for continually speaking of the bio-physical in denigrating terms as if such could never be more than a glorified toaster? Why postuate "spirit" and why feel so free to kill Mr. Data in the sci-fi hypothetical?

Not directed at me....

but Im doing a drive by.... bang, bang,

Big bang, Earth, Ocean, Elements, Chemicals, Polymers, Replicating Polymers, Maybe Viruses, Single celled creature,etc.... Us. Maybe it makes sense to you, doesn't mean your right.

I agree about Mr. Data. He was cool, no Spock mind you, but still cool.

If he were real, I think he would become an Evangelical Christian.

[tana]

Personally I would have been happy to see young Wesley get his head cut off.... The earlier the better... An irritating fellow...

Does anyone remember the episode where some aliens set themselves up as gods for centuries over an earth like world and people? They were using their technology to work the "miracles". Picard and the crew exposed them and sent em packing.

OK....carry on...

[ruski_canuk]

There is no reason that a purely physical entity (like me) couldn't value those things even more than you even while not believing in God (like Einstien, Hawking, Sagan, Asimov, Voltaire, Gould, Watson (DNA), Bill Gates, and numerous nobel prize winners, pulitzer prize winners and social activists).

No ghosts needed.

My quibble is with the explanatory power of the ghost or God or whatever. If you say "where does morality come from" and I answer "God", have I really answered the question ? Think about it, let us say that God gets in a Taxi with you. The two of you look at a robbery on the street and agree that it is 'bad' or 'wrong'. Does God's decision that it is bad make it so ? How is that different than any being deciding that something is bad ? If we agreed that it was bad, shouldn't I, the curious truth seeker, then ask "well WHY is it bad" ? If God says "because I said so" that provides the same level of morality as me saying that my own whims are the source of morality. Clearly, God must use some external framework to decide what is and is not moral. Thus, the statement that we need God for morality is like saying we need (insert any random word) for morality.

If anything, saying God is the source just distracts us from the 'external framework' which is the actual source of our concept of morality.

Mormon theology makes ample room for this external framework - just think about the 'eternal laws which even bind God'. There you have it, the eternal laws are the source (lets get into those) rather than God him/her/itself.

[Tarski]

My quibble is with the explanatory power of the ghost or God or whatever. If you say "where does morality come from" and I answer "God", have I really answered the question ? Think about it, let us say that God gets in a Taxi with you. The two of you look at a robbery on the street and agree that it is 'bad' or 'wrong'. Does God's decision that it is bad make it so ? How is that different than any being deciding that something is bad ? If we agreed that it was bad, shouldn't I, the curious truth seeker, then ask "well WHY is it bad" ? If God says "because I said so" that provides the same level of morality as me saying that my own whims are the source of morality. Clearly, God must use some external framework to decide what is and is not moral. Thus, the statement that we need God for morality is like saying we need (insert any random word) for morality.

If anything, saying God is the source just distracts us from the 'external framework' which is the actual source of our concept of morality.

Mormon theology makes ample room for this external framework - just think about the 'eternal laws which even bind God'. There you have it, the eternal laws are the source (lets get into those) rather than God him/her/itself.

I think the "external" framework would only end up being based on the nature of a community of human-like social beings--the Gods and thier dealings. So in a sense it would be back to the internal framework of secularism but moved up a level to the heavenly social world. Not different in kind.

In other worlds, the morality of the Mormon Gods is still relative to the sociality that they enjoy. It's objectivity would be something about the structure of that sociality and simply "what works". That's the position we are in anyway--its just down here and not up there.