The Appeal Of Atheism?

[Log]

I see your point, because it had to be atheism.

That's what he said - and who can gainsay it?

[J.S. Mill]

You, and the rest of your reading-impaired compatriots, seem to be imputing a claim to me that I never made. J. S. Mill, you ain't. Nevertheless, I am grateful, for my children's sake, that you haven't embraced the logical outcome of your belief system.

[utilitarianism] excites in many minds, and among them in some of the most estimable in feeling and purpose, inveterate dislike. To suppose that life has (as they express it) no higher end than pleasure- no better and nobler object of desire and pursuit- they designate as utterly mean and grovelling; as a doctrine worthy only of swine, to whom the followers of Epicurus were, at a very early period, contemptuously likened; and modern holders of the doctrine are occasionally made the subject of equally polite comparisons by its German, French, and English assailants.

When thus attacked, the Epicureans have always answered, that it is not they, but their accusers, who represent human nature in a degrading light; since the accusation supposes human beings to be capable of no pleasures except those of which swine are capable. [...] The comparison of the Epicurean life to that of beasts is felt as degrading, precisely because a beast's pleasures do not satisfy a human being's conceptions of happiness. Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites, and when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification.

http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill2.htm

[John Williams]

I'm more worried that another Dahmer will take your dogma seriously and start snatching kids and disappearing them. See my sig for details.

You sound like a Calvinist. Do you really believe in the total depravity of humans? Yikes.

[Tchild2]

That's what he said - and who can gainsay it?

Oh, no comment on Dan and Ron lafferty? It didn't fit into your argument very well?

[J.S. Mill]

That's what he said - and who can gainsay it?

Jeffrey Dahmer has obviously never heard of secular ethics. That's his (and his victims') loss, and doesn't say a hell of a lot about atheism in general.

[Tarski]

Not true, actually. At some point in the future, everything that exists will effectively be reduced to sub-atomic particles. Unfortunately, all life will be extinguished in the universe before then, but saying that anything in this universe will continue indefinately flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics. Death comes to all in this universe, and everything will be reduced to nothing.

This heat death thing is not a part of atheism. It is a somewhat speculative part of cosmology.

Look up Poincar

[Log]

Jeffrey Dahmer has obviously never heard of secular ethics. That's his (and his victims') loss, and doesn't say a hell of a lot about atheism in general.

Secular ethics - sentimental gibberish. Stalin and Mao, anyone?

[Tarski]

Secular ethics - sentimental gibberish. Stalin and Mao, anyone?

Calling something senimental gibberish is not an argument even if repeated often.

Let me demonstrate:

"Love one another? Humpf! Sentimental gibberish! "

Doesn't really work does it now.

[J.S. Mill]

Secular ethics - sentimental gibberish. Stalin and Mao, anyone?

Theist ethics - sentimental gibberish. Every mass-murderer who lived before the 20th century, anyone?

Secular ethics is serious stuff. Just because Stalin and Mao got it wrong doesn't mean all atheists have to follow their lead.

[BarrelO'Mangoes]

Disclaimer: I should not post so late.

To the comments about rebelling, parents, murderers, rapists, etc...and somehow atheism being about pride (not disputing that each individual atheist has their own reasons!) I have this reply:

I lost my belief on my knees. I pleaded with God to intervene and help someone I watched stumbling in life. This person desperately needed help, needed someone to love him, comfort him... I watched him suffer and I suffered for him. As I begged to God I knew he could hear me. At least I always thought so. Why couldn't He do anything to help someone that needed attention? After years of watching this individual in pain I recognized no one was going to help him other than those about him. They were not doing it. I was helpless and I was a child. It was just us and we were doing a piss poor job of taking care of our own! I wasn't angry with God, really. It was just a realization that no matter how much I weeped, and pleaded for intervention it would not appear and the ones living were the ones that had the power to help our fellow man. Later my disbelief solidified after years of doubts.

I do live my life as if there is no God -- how does that impact me? It doesn't mean I choose to do whatever I want, it means that I (and we all) are responsible for each other.

To meaning: I don't understand why an action or anything has to live forever to have meaning. There are things I've experienced that's made my brain sigh from joy and I can't relive that experience. It fades from my memory -- perhaps it shall dissipate completely one day. Yet, I still experienced it! I still soared upon some realization or some beauty. Why does that moment have to live on indefinitely for it to be meaningful? Why do the gifts we give, the anonymous acts we do, the simple delights we share have to be glorified and memorialized for eternity for there to be meaning? Why? Is not the moment enough?

[emeliza]

I stopped believing in God three years ago, and since then I have killed exactly zero people and raped exactly zero children.

CFR!!!

Just kidding.

Honestly I think those who kill for or in the name of God would probably kill for another reason if they were atheist.

I also believe those who are atheist and kill, would probably kill for or in the name of God if they believed.

[Tarski]

Come on Log! Rise to the challenge.

You claim that if atheists are right then we are only meat puppets made of matter. So what beyond matter (quantum fields) do you suppose exists?

Call it spirit. Now what properties does it have that matter cannot have? Does it exist in space? Does it endure in time? Sounds like matter to me!

Does it obey laws or is it radically random?

Does it just have whatever unexplained, unspoken, feel good properties that you need to make it seem better than matter? But what? How?

As I asked before:

Hey do you deny quantum physics, neurology, chemistry etc? No you don't. But you do seem to think that adding in a God and some spirit matter helps somehow. But what if God himself is biological (albeit perfected etc)? Then he is just a meat puppet?

Oh but he and we also have invisible or transparent "spirit puppets" inside right? Mere, silly, spirit puppets made of mere spirit.

Hmm. I guess you think that something has to be added to matter to make meaning? Is it spirit? Well what is that exactly but a word? Thats just more stuff. Until you can explain how some extra ghostly stuff makes the crucial difference without just asserting it or employing magical thinking then your imagined world doesn't help.

You are nothing but a meat puppet holding a transparent ectoplasm puppet.

What does it matter if the puppet is made of spirit? How can this ghost stuff hold meaning or freedom or whatever in a way that quantum fields cannot? What are the properties of this "non-material" stuff and how do those properties help anything? Why can't matter, by virtue of proper organization, have those very same properties?

So spell out what this extra stuff is and how it does its work to make it not merely more stuff. A spirit matter puppet is no better than a meat puppet is it? Give some possible details, evidence, please--anything but magical thinking about "spark of life,

[wenglund]

It comes down to a question of cause and effect. Sometimes an effect can easily be traced to a cause. If I smash a light-bulb with a hammer, the effect (a smashed light-bulb) can easily and justifiably be traced to the cause (the hammer). The more direct the correlation, the more justifiable the connection between a given cause and effect.

With respect to your example of the runner and his bananas: no, one cannot rationally conclude that in this circumstance correlation is in fact causation. The runner's muscle tone may have improved over time, reducing cramps. Perhaps he stopped drinking milk during this same time, or the temperature cooled due to changing seasons, or he jogged slower, or there was some kind of placebo effect. The cause is so far removed from the effect, and with so many simultaneous variables, that it would be unjustifiable to assign causality.

According to medicinenet, muscle cramps can be caused by low levels of potassium. Nutritionists indicate: "Bananas have very high content of potassium, a mineral that is essential to the normal muscular function, in both voluntary muscles (e.g. the arms and hands) and involuntary muscles (e.g. the heart and intestines)." And they state as one of many health benefits: "A deficiency in potassium can cause muscular cramps and greater susceptibility to injury. Make bananas a regular part of your diet if you exercise a lot, both for an energy boost and to prevent cramps and injuries." (See: HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Anyway, what you have been challenging here is whether benefits can be indicative of the verity of beliefs. Now, even though you may not draw a direct causal link in my hypothetical, nutritionists reasonably do. Either way, if there are cases where a direct causal link can be established between what is believed and the benefit (I am sure that even you can think of some), then the benefit can be indicative of the belief--much to your chagrin.

Also, rational links between beliefs and benefits may go beyond direct cause and effect--and this as illustrated, in part, by my hypothetical, where the validity of the runner's belief in the doctor (i.e. that the doctor knows what he was talking about and can be relied upon) was evinced by the runner realizing the desired benefits after following the doctors advise.

More importantly, I am not speaking so much in terms of establishing presumed belief/benefit links to a hard scientific certainty. Rather, I am looking at this from a pragmatic standpoint in relation to matters of faith--situations in our day-to-day living and the spiritual aspects of our lives where there isn't sufficient data and/or where circumstances don't lend themselves to controlling for externalities or isolating variables, where induction is the best that can be hoped for.

When it comes to something like religion, the conclusions one attempts to draw are so far removed from the supposed benefits that a connection can never reasonably be drawn. If you pray to God that your wife gets pregnant, and she gets pregnant, the alleged cause--that there is superhuman primate that lives in the clouds and grants wishes--is so far removed from the effect, that any attempt to prove the existence of the cause by virtue of the effect is irrational and unjustifiable.

I think your flailingly dogmatic assertion deserves an appropose clunk of a cowbell.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Thunderfire]

I stopped believing in God three years ago, and since then I have killed exactly zero people and raped exactly zero children. What's your explanation for that, Log? I'm pretty sure you could see where atheists are coming from if you put a little creative thought into the topic.

Hello friend,

Would it help to know that God still believes in you?

Let me offer some random thoughts as they come to my mind. In many ways we equate the existance of God based on the actions of those who claim to believe. This can be profitable in some regards, yet deadly in others. Meaning, all of us judge based on how others demonstrate their belief (or lack thereof). As example, the Ku Klux Klan profess a belief in God as well as those like Mother Teresa. Both say they believe, yet how these beliefs are demonstrated speak louder than words.

So I can see where atheist are coming from when many who profess a belief in God are some of the most ungodly people on the planet!

I know this will not help but it is truth to me...God has proven himself to me! When I sought him with all my heart, might, mind, and soul he was found. And I found him in some of the most extraordinary ways which made me marvel all the more. But then too, I approached him in all humility not seeking for God to prove himself to me, rather I sought to prove myself to him. This represents a healthy "fear of God" or rather a deep reverance.

Yet through this reverance I was shown things that gave me knowledge. With this knowledge I no longer needed faith in Gods existance, rather I could have faith in even greater things, knowing the might and majesty of God. Meaning, I began to understand God's "strange work" and why things happened they way they do.

I offer this merely as a source of encouragement to humbly put Gods word to the test. Try it, test it out as a little child would. You will be surprised when you learn how much faith God has in you.

Just something to ponder...

[wenglund]

lol. You are choosing to use a fallacy in your logic. Not saying much for you.

I'm active LDS, and not attacking your beliefs but please... go do some basic study of logic and reason and you'll see how incorrect you are for using wanted outcomes as causes for probable truth.

(Please excuse any spelling errors).

-Noob

I am reasonably familiar with logic already, and I fail to see what you may be seeing. Please be so kind as to clearly point it out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tarski]

I am reasonably familiar with logic already, and I fail to see what you may be seeing. Please be so kind as to clearly point it out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You are trying to use benefits that would come with a hypothesized entity as evidence for the entity's existence.

You keep repeating this line of thought.

Consider all the fictional entities that would be beneficial if they did exist. Does that hypothetical benefit provide one wit of evidence for their existence?

Flying cars, ESP, transporter machines, Santa Claus, a world peace machine, cure for AIDS, trees on Mars, faster than light space travel.

All would be beneficial.

The point is simple but you keep drifting back to it in some form.

But what of the benefits deriving from belief itself?

In some cases, believing false things could provide benefit to a person. It might benefit Joe to think he has a higher IQ than he does (confidence etc.) but that isn't actual evidence that it is true.

Note: Log, see my challenge a few posts back.

chirp chirp

[Log]

(By the way, an atheist can believe in a magical world too if he or she wants.

Yes, but you don't.

You are conflating physicalism/naturalism with atheism.)

You haven't distinguished your sect of atheism from materialism; I simply take your religion seriously, even if you haven't the guts to, unlike Dahmer. For which, by the way, I'm grateful. You don't really wish to experience what awaits him. I wouldn't wish it upon anyone.

Come on Log! Rise to the challenge

I don't have an ego bound up in appearing to win. But here's a broad outline of "what else exists."

A thing which is not matter - in that it is not inert of itself, but active of itself - called "intelligence" exists. It can neither be created nor destroyed; it thinks, patterns, feels, values, loves, hates, and so forth. It can interact with matter - the inert "other half" of reality.

What's fun is that this fundamental dichotomy - things which act of themselves (intelligences), and things which are acted upon (matter) - is the nature of reality; it's something we all know inside, even while some of us lie and deny it for the sake of our pride and arrogant vanity.

As for evidence of it - how can we prove that intelligence has affected matter - that's where Dembski's specificity/complexity criterion can come in useful. But that's only necessary, and possibly not sufficient, for the recalcitrant materialist who lies against the evidence of his experience and existence - he has consciously adopted a pernicious axiom which admits of no exit for any evidence brought to bear against it even in principle.

These intelligences, not being destructible, and yet feeling and thinking, and that eternally by nature, must be rendered fit to associate with each other continually into the future. Hence, the commandments and the behavioral requirements for the Celestial kingdom, so that we can all be mutually indwelling in love and joy unadulterated, and that eternally, if we will. Hence, punishment and hell, meant to reform the seat of emotion of the wayward, from which only the recalcitrant, the prideful liars, the enemies of their brethren for their own aggrandizement's sake, shall not be taken out, for they will not be reformed to enjoy life in the community of the sanctified - those whom can dwell in each other because it would be pleasant to do so.

Stop lying to yourself against your heart.

[Luigi]

Yes, but you don't.

You haven't distinguished your sect of atheism from materialism; I simply take your religion seriously, even if you haven't the guts to, unlike Dahmer. For which, by the way, I'm grateful. You don't really wish to experience what awaits him. I wouldn't wish it upon anyone.

Don't give us that atheist religion leads people to be like Dahmer nonsense. Need I remind you of all the people who have killed believing it was God's will? Here's one you might be familiar with:

Higbee then said to me, "Brother Lee, I am ordered by President Haight to inform you that you shall receive a crown of Celestial glory for your faithfulness, and your eternal joy shall be complete." ~John D. Lee

There are plenty of countries chuck full of atheists where people don't go around destroying each other. Sweden, for example, is the most atheistic according to adherents.com but has a murder rate of 2 per 100,000 (and some contend 1 per 100,000 since Sweden stats include alleged murders of Swedes outside of the country) while the United States has a rate of 5.5 per 100,000. To take one homicidal maniac and to suggest it reflects the 'religion' of all atheists is like someone comparing all theists to Bin Laden-either is irresponsible and absurd.

[wenglund]

You are trying to use benefits that would come with a hypothesized entity as evidence for the entity's existence.

Ironically, while attempting to demonstrate my alleged illogic, you unwittingly managed to expose your own.

If you would look more carefully at what I have said on this thread, you will note that I have been speaking generitcally of "beliefs". I had in mind a broad range of perscriptive religious principles and practices making up the restored gospel of Christ, as analogized in my hypothetical. You have mistakenly jumped to the conclusion that I had in mind establishing the existence of a so-called "hypothesized entity".

I am wondering if there may be some value in you using your heart since your mind has failed you at least twice that I have pointed out on this thread already.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tarski]

Yes, but you don't.

You haven't distinguished your sect of atheism from materialism; I simply take your religion seriously, even if you haven't the guts to, unlike Dahmer. For which, by the way, I'm grateful. You don't really wish to experience what awaits him. I wouldn't wish it upon anyone.

I don't have an ego bound up in appearing to win. But here's a broad outline of "what else exists."

A thing which is not matter - in that it is not inert of itself, but active of itself - called "intelligence" exists. It can neither be created nor destroyed; it thinks, patterns, feels, values, loves, hates, and so forth. It can interact with matter - the inert "other half" of reality.

"it thinks, patterns, feels, values, loves, hates"

Ummm, that's what brains do! We know they do this, we even have some understanding of some of the details. Get a book and learn how it works and how it fails to work without brains. Brain damage can make a man evil, aggressive, passive, super kind, or see God and angels etc. It does it because it has parts and the parts have properties (being made of that most wonderful of all things MATTER!---aka quantum fields)

You invent this magic stuff and then just declare that it does all this work by magic without any understanding.

Do you know the difference between explanations that have explanatory power and pseudo-explanations that have none? I think not.

What's fun is that this fundamental dichotomy - things which act of themselves (intelligences),

"act of itself"

Unpack this! It's fuzzy, cryptic and possibly incoherent.

and things which are acted upon (matter) - is the nature of the reality; it's something we all know inside, even while some of us lie and deny it for the sake of our pride and arrogant vanity.

Jeez you are emotional.

You aren't doing well so far. You saying just what I predicted.

As for evidence of it - how can we prove that intelligence has affected matter - that's where Dembski's specificity/complexity criterion can come in useful.

Oh, do go on.

These intelligences, not being destructible, and yet feeling and thinking,

Can a substance feel and think intrinsically or is that what happens when a substance is organized so as to carry out information processing actions?

Intelligence in itself without being the result of the activity of something is like saying heaviness in itself without anything to be heavy. What exactly are you picturing? (Actually, I kinda know since I held these fuzzy views when I was a child. It never gets past the magical "one thing does it all" wonder substance level--no explanation at all. By contrast, a cognitive model for a certain human behavior actual explains something.

You opinion on matter is merely emotional. You call it mere matter and mentally conjure certain images of chemicals, test tubes, and clunky robots, but it is just some emotional impressions--not clear thinking and certainly not proper appreciation.

and that eternally by nature, must be rendered fit to associate with each other continually into the future. Hence, the commandments and the behavioral requirements for the Celestial kingdom, so that we can all be mutually indwelling in love and joy unadulterated, and that eternally, if we will. Hence, punishment and hell, meant to reform the seat of emotion of the wayward, from which only the recalcitrant, the prideful liars, the enemies of their brethren for their own aggrandizement's sake, shall not be taken out, for they will not be reformed to enjoy life in the community of the sanctified - those whom can dwell in each other because it would be pleasant to do so.

1. It isn't a coherent explanation--empty words so devoid of specificity as to completely lack explanatory value. The road to darkness.

2. There is no evidence for this non-material stuff (how could there be since nothing has been sufficiently specified--its all still fuzzy talk)

3. The whole rant about eternal persisting pure intelligence is made up out of whole cloth by men and is atavistically medieval.

Stop lying to yourself against your heart.

My "heart" (in the poetic sense) doesn't need any of your miracle stuff to prop it up.

The true character of a man is revealed by what he would do if there were no God to reward or punish. That is what you already are inside. You seem certain that you would be like Jeffrey Dahmer, so deep down it seems that is what you really are (already). You are what you would do if the warden wasn't watching. Take away the all seeing surveillance camera and the threats and heavenly bribes and see what a man really is.

[Log]

The true character of a man is revealed by what he would do if there were no God to reward or punish. That is what you already are inside. You seem certain that you would be like Jeffrey Dahmer, so deep down it seems that is what you really are (already). You are what you would do if the warden wasn't watching. Take away the all seeing surveillance camera and the threats and heavenly bribes and see what a man really is.

I can see why people in your real-world personal life have declined to pursue an acquaintance. I think I'll join them.

[Jason]

The true character of a man is revealed by what he would do if there were no God to reward or punish. That is what you already are inside. You seem certain that you would be like Jeffrey Dahmer, so deep down it seems that is what you really are (already). You are what you would do if the warden wasn't watching. Take away the all seeing surveillance camera and the threats and heavenly bribes and see what a man really is.

I essentially agree. This is why it was necessary for God to remove us from His presence and remove our memories of Him in order to test our character. In an environement where we must beleive in God with faith instead of have a true knowledge of Him our true character is indeed revealed.

Jeffrey Dahmer realized the truth behind atheism - if we (individually and collectively) will be nothing in the space of a few years, then nothing we do now ultimately matters, and we have no reason not to do whatever we feel like and can get away with.

[Luigi]

I can see why people in your real-world personal life have declined to pursue an acquaintance. I think I'll join them.

Very convincing response Log.

[Tarski]

I can see why people in your real-world personal life have declined to pursue an acquaintance. I think I'll join them.

You think you know something about my real-life? How so?

FYI, I have plenty of friends, a wife, family and two lovely grandkids.

The one who compares atheists like Steven Hawking, Carl Sagan, Steven Weinberg, Richard Dawkins and so on) to Jeffrey Dahmer is the one who is probably unpleasant in real life. Just a guess.

Brain:

Frontal Lobe: judgment, problem solving, personality, emotions, expressive language, inhibition of behavior

Motor Cortex: physical movement

Sensory Cortex: sensation

Parietal Lobe: tactile perception (touch), awareness of spatial relations, differentiation of sizes, shapes, and colors, and academic skills

Occipital Lobe: visual perception, visual input, reading (the perception and recognition of printed words)

Cerebellum: coordination of voluntary movement, balance, and equilibrium

Brain stem (Medulla Oblongata, Pons and Spinal Cord): breathing, swallowing, sweating, blood pressure, digestion, temperature, alertness/sleep.

Spirit:

Just does it all (cause its magical)

[Log]

Very convincing response Log.

If I thougt Tarski could be convinced, or even you, I might say something different. If I cared whether I appeared to win or lose, I might say something different.

As it is, I will simply note, again, once one assumes there is no God, there can be no evidence, in principle, to the contrary; an implication of atheism is that Tarski, you, and Jeff Dahmer are precisely morally equivalent; and I view it as a good thing that most atheists, unlike Dahmer, do not embrace the full moral consequences of their philosophy.