Why not atheism?

[Skywalker]

Whats the purpose of grief if you are going to spend enternity together?

There are many types of grief. There is grief over a lost love, a broken relationship, your favorite car breaking down, selling your childhood home, etc. What is the purpose of anything under the atheist viewpoint.

[rameumptom]

I believe in evolution. That said, I also believe that the statistical odds of a world as ours with as much complexity as ours could not have evolved to the extent it has without someone/thing directing at least portions of the advancement.

Take the human eyeball. There are several systems involved that have to be taken into account. Each of these systems, according to evolution, would have developed separately, but then combined into a superior adaptation. The odds are so small, yet it has become so popular in evolution that most of the animal kingdom has developed complex eyes of one sort or another.

Symbiotic relationships between two different species is another. While adaptation can occur, it seems to me that much of it would require a directed boost to actually survive and thrive. This is true on many levels, including eukaryotic cells such as mitochondria.

There are so many reasons for life not to exist. Just think of the many giant disasters that have wiped life off our earth. Why has life survived planet-killer asteroids, Ice Ages, Warm Ages, bubonic plague, world war, etc? IMO, it would not have survived, and thrived, except a greater power is involved.

As for which god does one believe has been involved: does it matter what we call God? There is no religion that understands God(s) completely. Even the LDS believe in continual revelation so God can reveal himself to us a little at a time. This means our own understanding of God is largely inadequate. Yet we believe, even as other Christians and non-Christians believe in a Creator.

[Skywalker]

Take the human eyeball. There are several systems involved that have to be taken into account. Each of these systems, according to evolution, would have developed separately, but then combined into a superior adaptation. The odds are so small, yet it has become so popular in evolution that most of the animal kingdom has developed complex eyes of one sort or another.

I think there is compelling logic against the argument from complexity. Have you heard of the infinite monkey theory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

[paulpatter]

Yes, you are indeed getting closer to grasping my point.

And, as a masquerading atheist, your point is ________________________________.

[elguanteloko]

What is it about us that makes us want to be these things?

you mean physically? our bodies. mentally? seems to me that it is our never ending desire to be in control of things (the will to power).

What is it about us that makes us want to progress, accomplish, and become successful?

sames as above.

What is this curiosity in our species that dwarfs the curiosity of other inhabitants of Earth?

same as above.

What evolutionary advantage do these things have? In fact, what evolutionary advantage does a cerebral cortex have? Why can't we simply operate on our limbic system like much of the animal kingdom?

well, look at us. we have managed to control much of the tools to prevent us from dying out; I would say that is pretty successful. We do have, obviously, other problems that other species don't have but I would say we are much safer than any of them.

Perhaps, but the end result is the same... so who cares what I do, have done, or will do? It doesn't matter in the slightest.

It matters to the only thing that is able to worry about it: a mind. if you are talking about reality without minds then nothing cares about anything since nothing is able to worry about it. since minds are the only things that are able to worry about this then it matters only to minds.

Contrary to popular belief, I do not choose to be good simply because I believe some guy in the sky will punish me if I am not.

now, this has some serious implications and I hope you realize them. I am with you, but this is some serious stuff.

I choose to be good because whatever intrinsic benefits are associated with me being good will be part of me forever, added to my repertoire of deeds for eternity. What I do here, echoes in eternity, and that is the most profound truth for me.

sure, the drop of water in the eternal sea is going to still be there an exist but it is so small compared to infinity that you can't even notice. Let's say you have a pool with water and an eternal sea that never ends. In which of the two would 50 liters of black dye be noticed the most? and in the infinite sea, would ANY amount of black dye ever be noticed at all?

[Skywalker]

you mean physically? our bodies. mentally? seems to me that it is our never ending desire to be in control of things (the will to power).

To be in control of things, I can see that as a goal, yes. But, I guess my question would then be why do we want to be in control of things? To prolong our life, so we don't die out? But we will die out, it is not avoidable. It is a truth of our existence. So are these desires fruitless?

now, this has some serious implications and I hope you realize them. I am with you, but this is some serious stuff.

Not sure what you mean here... but would love to find out.

[elguanteloko]

To be in control of things, I can see that as a goal, yes. But, I guess my question would then be why do we want to be in control of things? To prolong our life, so we don't die out?

notice I said the will to power and not the will to life. I am sure we would prefer to die free than to live as the most miserable of slaves (unless you see the possibility to escape in the future or something).

But we will die out, it is not avoidable. It is a truth of our existence. So are these desires fruitless?

to say it in your own terms, they are the fruits.

Not sure what you mean here... but would love to find out.

It means that you can believe in God and that He is perfect and still believe that you have to disobey Him when you see what He is asking you as wrong (killing children of conquered cities, sacrifice your own son, etc).

[Skywalker]

notice I said the will to power and not the will to life. I am sure we would prefer to die free than to live as the most miserable of slaves (unless you see the possibility to escape in the future or something).

Okay then, power to what end?

to say it in your own terms, they are the fruits.

So the struggle and the journey themselves are the fruits, not the end result?

It means that you can believe in God and that He is perfect and still believe that you have to disobey Him when you see what He is asking you as wrong (killing children of conquered cities, sacrifice your own son, etc).

I believe in the LDS God, and believe that he has Godly reasons for things he asked of people in the Old Testament, or the Book of Abraham. I am willing to accept there are things we simply do not know.

[elguanteloko]

Okay then, power to what end?

see below

So the struggle and the journey themselves are the fruits, not the end result?

all these are the end we look for: the journey and the 'end results'. I don't see anything beyond this.

I believe in the LDS God, and believe that he has Godly reasons for things he asked of people in the Old Testament, or the Book of Abraham. I am willing to accept there are things we simply do not know.

Oh, we believe in the same things here! I also accept there are things I don't know but I believe also I am responsible to do the best I know. If He commands me to kill my neighbor's daughter but I don't know why, I am responsible to NOT do it. If you do it because He is powerful enough to punish you for not doing it or to reward you if you do it, then you would be contradicting what you said previously.

[MistahStokes]

Perhaps you could be a little more clear?

Your two year old child dies. Instead of being heartbroken, you should be over joyed, since that child died before the age of accountability, and pretty much gets a free pass into the Celestial Kingdom.

Grief is an aspect of love.

I don't undersand how that changes anything.

There are many types of grief. There is grief over a lost love, a broken relationship, your favorite car breaking down, selling your childhood home, etc. What is the purpose of anything under the atheist viewpoint.

You are having the same problem as Jason here. What you are do is linking purpose with a future event, requireing a endless chain justifications. This infinite regress of justifications isn't any better then a chain of justifications that end. You've set up a demand for reason where the rules prohibit any reason from being given, from anybody.

[Jason]

And, as a masquerading atheist, your point is ________________________________.

My point being that an atheist, moral reletavist viewpoint has as its logical consequence no compelling reason to prefer doing good to doing evil, because good and evil don't even exist within such a worldview, and the consequences of any action are ultimately temporary and therefore meaningless.

I find it a very bleak worldview without any real hope, and that's why it is to be avoided.

[Jason]

Your two year old child dies. Instead of being heartbroken, you should be over joyed, since that child died before the age of accountability, and pretty much gets a free pass into the Celestial Kingdom.

One can still have grief over missed life experiences and a lifetime of seperation, despite the knowledge that ultimately your child may be better off and the time of your seperation will be but an instant in the eternal scheme of things.

I don't undersand how that changes anything.

I was explaining what purpose grief has. It is a consequence of loving someone that you will grieve with them or for them when they encounter misfortune.

Presumably the next question will be "what purpose does love have?"

[MistahStokes]

One can still have grief over missed life experiences and a lifetime of seperation, despite the knowledge that ultimately your child may be better off and the time of your seperation will be but an instant in the eternal scheme of things.

If you tripped and twisted you ankle and in turn were rewarded 50 million dollars, I wouldn't feel bad about the pain you felt. I also think this example is a vast understatement compared to dying young here on earth and gaining the Celestial Kingdom.

I was explaining what purpose grief has. It is a consequence of loving someone that you will grieve with them or for them when they encounter misfortune.

Presumably the next question will be "what purpose does love have?"

People tend to grieve when they don't expect to ever see that person again. If you fully expected to be reunited with someone in the hereafter in heaven, for all eternity, death here on earth should seem like just a near insignificant event. In fact, going by the questions you have asked, since that person is spending the rest of eternity in a grand, heavenly existence, doesn't that render their death almost meaningless?

[paulpatter]

My point being that an atheist, moral reletavist viewpoint has as its logical consequence no compelling reason to prefer doing good to doing evil, because good and evil don't even exist within such a worldview, and the consequences of any action are ultimately temporary and therefore meaningless.

I find it a very bleak worldview without any real hope, and that's why it is to be avoided.

Thanks for responding to my question. The moral relativist viewpoint isn't monolithic; in fact, there are three distinct "schools" of it: the empirical, the metaethical, and the normative. There are significant differences among them. Consequently, your definition of moral relativism must be characterized as simplistic; however, I think you played your role as an atheist remarkably well. I give you credit and kudos for that.

[Jason]

If you tripped and twisted you ankle and in turn were rewarded 50 million dollars, I wouldn't feel bad about the pain you felt. I also think this example is a vast understatement compared to dying young here on earth and gaining the Celestial Kingdom.

But a child would in fact cry over a twisted ankle, despite the 50 million. We are children.

People tend to grieve when they don't expect to ever see that person again.

I disagree. You can grieve over any long seperation or even over someone's misfortune, temporary though it may be.

If you fully expected to be reunited with someone in the hereafter in heaven, for all eternity, death here on earth should seem like just a near insignificant event. In fact, going by the questions you have asked, since that person is spending the rest of eternity in a grand, heavenly existence, doesn't that render their death almost meaningless?

Yes the atonement and exaltation does, ultimately, render death meaningless.

[MistahStokes]

If this:

Yes the atonement and exaltation does, ultimately, render death meaningless.

Why this?

I disagree. You can grieve over any long seperation or even over someone's misfortune, temporary though it may be.

[Jason]

If this:

Yes the atonement and exaltation does, ultimately, render death meaningless.

Why this?

I disagree. You can grieve over any long seperation or even over someone's misfortune, temporary though it may be.

I already answered your question. Because we are children.

[MistahStokes]

I already answered your question. Because we are children.

So the death has meaning in the present and loses meaning later on down the time line?

[Skywalker]

Oh, we believe in the same things here! I also accept there are things I don't know but I believe also I am responsible to do the best I know. If He commands me to kill my neighbor's daughter but I don't know why, I am responsible to NOT do it. If you do it because He is powerful enough to punish you for not doing it or to reward you if you do it, then you would be contradicting what you said previously.

We agree on this point.

Is that Dawkins in your profile picture?

[Jason]

So the death has meaning in the present and loses meaning later on down the time line?

Our perspective will change as we become adults, yes.

[Tarski]

There has been a lot of talk about randomness, complexity, life, self awareness, fine tuning and so on.

It should probably give pause that when we look at those who are in the best position to understand the very meaning and significance of these notions and who are best versed in the scientific details (biologists, physicists, mathematicians, cognitive scientists etc.) we find a larger percent of atheists and this is more true when one restricts to those who are top in their field.

If anything, apparently knowing more about these things and considering them at a deeper level tends to push one in the direction of atheism/agnosticism.

Of these intellectuals and scientist, those that do buck the trend and profess belief in God are more often talking about "God" in an impersonal or abstract sense that is alien to average religious people and antithetical to Mormon theology.

Another point is this: If you wish to hold up design-like complexity as evidence for God then it cannot be the God we learn about in the King Follet discourses who would simply be following a preexisting pattern handed down through eternity. In particular, the design of the human form predates any one god, including Elohim as often understood in Mormonism (as man is God once was etc.). In this popular understanding of Heavenly Father, we must concede that He did not come up with the design of man or presumably the basic ideas of DNA/RNA, cells, plants, animals, reproduction, hands, eyes, etc. At best he effected minor variations on the basic structures of human life.

The ultimate origin of complexity is left undiscovered in this brand of Mormon theology. If we accept the theological arguments that appeal to design-like complexity then we must conclude the existence of a super-God (GOD), an original God who did not have a man-like form or a biological structure (since this is part of what this GOD would have to have designed).

[elguanteloko]

We agree on this point.

awesome!

Is that Dawkins in your profile picture?

ew. No, he is Noam Chomsky.

[Jason]

It should probably give pause that when we look at those who are in the best position to understand the very meaning and significance of these notions and who are best versed in the scientific details (biologists, physicists, mathematicians, cognitive scientists etc.) we find a larger percent of atheists and this is more true when one restricts to those who are top in their field.

I disagree that this is the case.

Who determines who is at the top of their field? Their peers? Then wouldn't this be more of a question of popularity than accuracy?

If anything, apparently knowing more about these things and considering them at a deeper level tends to push one in the direction of atheism/agnosticism.

Agnosticism and atheism are two seperate things. For one thing, any really serious scientist must know that he cannot make positive statements about the existence or non-existence of God. To be consistent he must be agnostic.

[Facsimile 3]

There has been a lot of talk about randomness, complexity, life, self awareness, fine tuning and so on.

It should probably give pause that when we look at those who are in the best position to understand the very meaning and significance of these notions and who are best versed in the scientific details (biologists, physicists, mathematicians, cognitive scientists etc.) we find a larger percent of atheists and this is more true when one restricts to those who are top in their field.

If anything, apparently knowing more about these things and considering them at a deeper level tends to push one in the direction of atheism/agnosticism.

Wikipedia Solomon Asch

Asch was a professor of psychology at Swarthmore College for 19 years, working with psychologists including Wolfgang K

[elguanteloko]

I disagree that this is the case.

Who determines who is at the top of their field? Their peers? Then wouldn't this be more of a question of popularity than accuracy?

well, I doubt Dr. X could become very famous in science for having the coolest car and having the hottest wife around these days.

Agnosticism and atheism are two seperate things. For one thing, any really serious scientist must know that he cannot make positive statements about the existence or non-existence of God. To be consistent he must be agnostic.(emphasis added by elguanteloko)

This is just simply not the case. An atheist would contend that we are as justified in saying God does not exist as many other things we can safely say do not exist.