Declension
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2012
Posts: 1652
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| cw10 wrote: | | What's rational about debating religion when you have none? |
This is the logic of a person who has given up all hope for humanity. We are all obligated to challenge each other's beliefs, especially when they are beliefs about extremely important things. It is a hard road, but in the end, it is the only road worth taking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
heavenlyabyss
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 10, 2011
Posts: 530
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:51 pm Post subject: Re: Free-will and Atheism |
|
|
| NarcissusSavage wrote: | | heavenlyabyss wrote: | I am an atheist with some bad morals (ie i drink too much, I smoke too much). I will admit that, but to say that atheism implies bad morals is a fallacy and it is absurd and this mentality needs to stop.
There is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy. There is also such a thing as internalizing negative beliefs that others impose on you. If people tell you over and over and over and over again that you are immoral because you are an atheist, then you may in fact become immoral.
There is absolutely no logical reason whatsoever why atheism should imply immorality. Actually, I am surprised more Christians aren't immoral considering how immoral their God is. I am sorry if that is offensive but it is the truth in my opinion. I think what keeps them from being more immoral than they are is the fact that their religion is well accepted and they are not being constantly oppressed.
I am going out on a limb here, but I mean come on, atheism is not equal to immorality. |
Morality is in the eye of the beholder. An atheist will likely have some slightly different morals in peripheral areas, while the core of the morals found in almost all religions hold pretty true for atheists too. (As a generalized statement about averages)
I have some morals and ethics most theists don't place any value in either. I consider certain acts the equivalent to a sin, and these things are not written on any stone tablet. But "I" think they are as important and sometimes more so. I see Christians in particular "sinning" in my eyes all the time, almost continuously. If I wanted to be as much of a hypocrite, I could try to get them to repent, and call them all immoral for sinning against the natural world of reason and intellectual honesty!! Hold picket rallies outside churches condemning the sin of teaching purposeful ignorance. (I don't)
Just because people have differing moral codes, does not mean any one is more or less moral. This is very subjective.
This is why Christians think atheists are immoral, and they think everyone else is too. To them, the only moral code is their moral code. It’s natural behavior to be blind to the ways of “others”, people only want to know the ways of “themselves”. |
I agree to an extent but I also think moral relativism is a dangerous concept.
When I see someone person spank their 6-year old child or yell angrily at them, I want to vomit. I'm not saying this has anything to do with religion, I'm actually going on a tangent, but the idea is that sometimes moral relativism is wrong. And sometimes people need to be called out.
I don't believe in getting into logical debates with good religious people, only the bad ones, and only the bad ones who use their to justify evil. When religion is used to justify evil, that is when intervening is an absolute must.
Some people would claim the mere act of bring children to church everyday is evil itself, and I actually do think they are entitled to that opinion, and they are entitled to protest as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
cw10
Phoenix
Joined: May 24, 2011
Age: 40
Posts: 973
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vigilans wrote: | | Its not that complicated.. you're just not getting the standards used to define "founding fathers", which I pretty clearly explained, and which two different ones are used in that paragraph which leads to the nonsensical numbers leading to more than 55 |
Well no again because the paragraph only refers to the 55 delegates that chose to accept both the delegation and to show up and be counted as present. The paragraph is counting the 55 delegate attendees and nothing more. It's not making any reference to "founding fathers", it's a subset of data in reference to the founding fathers, to be more specific the 55 that attended the conference. It's common sense to use the phrase "55 delegates of the constitutional convention" to mean the 55 delegates that were in attendance because they are the only one's who were officially counted by their presence. There are more than 74 founding fathers, but only 74 were delegate candidates. Of those 74 only 55 were either recognized as present, or did not accept the delegation, or did but did not attend.
There's nothing confusing about this very simple mathematical solution, you're just making it harder than it is. The numbers don't lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Declension
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2012
Posts: 1652
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:25 am Post subject: Re: Free-will and Atheism |
|
|
| heavenlyabyss wrote: | | moral relativism is a dangerous concept |
We shouldn't reject concepts just because they're dangerous. Darwinism is a dangerous concept.
Moral relativism should be rejected because it is bad philosophy, not because it is dangerous. Moral relativists, just like hard determinists and solipsists, are forced into defending extremely silly positions that they cannot possibly hold. When your philosophy causes you to betray your own integrity, the philosophy is not fit for purpose. The point of philosophy is to explain what you know, not to insist that you don't actually know it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Vigilans
Orgasm Donor
Joined: Jun 20, 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 12088
Location: La belle province
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cw10 wrote: | | Vigilans wrote: | | Its not that complicated.. you're just not getting the standards used to define "founding fathers", which I pretty clearly explained, and which two different ones are used in that paragraph which leads to the nonsensical numbers leading to more than 55 |
Well no again because the paragraph only refers to the 55 delegates that chose to accept both the delegation and to show up and be counted as present. The paragraph is counting the 55 delegate attendees and nothing more. It's not making any reference to "founding fathers", it's a subset of data in reference to the founding fathers, to be more specific the 55 that attended the conference. It's common sense to use the phrase "55 delegates of the constitutional convention" to mean the 55 delegates that were in attendance because they are the only one's who were officially counted by their presence. There are more than 74 founding fathers, but only 74 were delegate candidates. Of those 74 only 55 were either recognized as present, or did not accept the delegation, or did but did not attend.
There's nothing confusing about this very simple mathematical solution, you're just making it harder than it is. The numbers don't lie. |
cw10... its the "Religion" subsection in "Founding Fathers of the United States". Of course its making reference to the Founding Fathers... FFS
The author first uses the conference attendees as the example of religious demographics, but clearly mentions people afterwards who did not attend, while still making blanket statements about the "entirety" of the Founding Fathers (thus, not just this one conference, despite it being the source s/he chose to use to demonstrate their point...). This in itself is dishonest since there are dozens and dozens of individuals not even being considered for the "Religion" meta topic. There really isn't anything confusing about this, either you just don't get it or are being typically disingenuous. Furthermore this pointless tangent once again allowed you to slip out of answering the actual questions posed to you
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do |
|
| Back to top |
|
NarcissusSavage
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 31
Posts: 656
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vigilans wrote: | cw10...
Furthermore this pointless tangent once again allowed you to slip out of answering the actual questions posed to you |
He doesn't answer questions posed to him.
Eg. of my impression of how a typical conversation goes...
Q: How are you?
A: What does that mean? Of course the weather is fine.
Q: Wait...what? No, it's pouring outside dude, and a hurricane is imminent. Did you read the forecast?
A: I've read revelations. And you're going to hell, heathen.
Q: Excuse me?
A: Yeah, and all the commies too, they're atheists, and you are, so you must be a commie.
Q: ...I just wanted to ask how you were doing.
A: I don't share my personal information with commies. 10 of every 8 commies are leftwing spies for the imperials. And they all hate Jesus. Which proves there is a god.
Q: ...
_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
Maybe you are too?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
MCalavera
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 16, 2010
Age: 30
Posts: 3963
Location: Melbourne
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:02 am Post subject: Re: Free-will and Atheism |
|
|
| Declension wrote: | | heavenlyabyss wrote: | | moral relativism is a dangerous concept |
We shouldn't reject concepts just because they're dangerous. Darwinism is a dangerous concept.
Moral relativism should be rejected because it is bad philosophy, not because it is dangerous. Moral relativists, just like hard determinists and solipsists, are forced into defending extremely silly positions that they cannot possibly hold. When your philosophy causes you to betray your own integrity, the philosophy is not fit for purpose. The point of philosophy is to explain what you know, not to insist that you don't actually know it. |
I go with hard determinism because of Occam's razor. Hard determinism explains everything in this reality more sufficiently without the need for an extra unnecessary (and, may I add, vaguely defined) entity called "free will".
Moral relativism is also not a bad one. I challenge any absolutist to come up with evidence for an absolute standard for our morals.
Both philosophies go along quite well with my integrity. In fact, denying them compels one to contradict reality in various aspects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Vigilans
Orgasm Donor
Joined: Jun 20, 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 12088
Location: La belle province
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NarcissusSavage wrote: | | Vigilans wrote: | cw10...
Furthermore this pointless tangent once again allowed you to slip out of answering the actual questions posed to you |
He doesn't answer questions posed to him.
Eg. of my impression of how a typical conversation goes...
Q: How are you?
A: What does that mean? Of course the weather is fine.
Q: Wait...what? No, it's pouring outside dude, and a hurricane is imminent. Did you read the forecast?
A: I've read revelations. And you're going to hell, heathen.
Q: Excuse me?
A: Yeah, and all the commies too, they're atheists, and you are, so you must be a commie.
Q: ...I just wanted to ask how you were doing.
A: I don't share my personal information with commies. 10 of every 8 commies are leftwing spies for the imperials. And they all hate Jesus. Which proves there is a god.
Q: ... |
 sadly accurate
Q: What airline do you usually fly on?
A: No American planes have ever crashed, technically
Q: What? That doesn't make sense, besides being out of the left field, I was just asking you your favored airline
A: No, up and down are subjective. To people on the opposite side of the planet, those planes were actually traveling upwards towards them
Q: ...
A: You are immoral
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do |
|
| Back to top |
|
Declension
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2012
Posts: 1652
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:43 am Post subject: Re: Free-will and Atheism |
|
|
| MCalavera wrote: | | Hard determinism explains everything in this reality |
You know that you can make choices. You know this far more intimately than you know about physics. If you really think that the two conflict, then you must abandon the latter, not the former.
| MCalavera wrote: | | I challenge any absolutist to come up with evidence for an absolute standard for our morals. |
You know that there is such a thing as right and wrong. You know this far more intimately than you know about the origin of human societies. If you really think that the two conflict, then you must abandon the latter, not the former. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Oodain
big chief wulla bamboom alakaway
Joined: Jan 31, 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 5022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:52 am Post subject: Re: Free-will and Atheism |
|
|
| Declension wrote: | | MCalavera wrote: | | Hard determinism explains everything in this reality |
You know that you can make choices. You know this far more intimately than you know about physics. If you really think that the two conflict, then you must abandon the latter, not the former.
| MCalavera wrote: | | I challenge any absolutist to come up with evidence for an absolute standard for our morals. |
You know that there is such a thing as right and wrong. You know this far more intimately than you know about the origin of human societies. If you really think that the two conflict, then you must abandon the latter, not the former. |
or our perception is inherently flawed and this leads us to think we have free will, how can you prove that tyou actually would do something different when history teels us you didnt?
untill we know our neurology in a much more complete way it will be near impossible to even properly speculate (anything untill then will be guesswork based on what will in most cases be flawed guesswork)
also it doesnt take a genius to see that while killing is generally wrong there are situations where it is a better outcome fro society, not because of capital punishment or the like, but simply if an officer shoots a wrongdoer to save an innocent person, that conversely also isnt absolute as it depends on the circumstances surrounding it.
in reality i think there are some axioms that most cultures will agree on and some that will vary wildly, that in itself suggests that there is no "clear cut and universally true morality", something that taken the size of the universe into account becomes ever more unlikely the more we discover, intelligent life on another planet would make or break such a theory.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Declension
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2012
Posts: 1652
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:57 am Post subject: Re: Free-will and Atheism |
|
|
| Oodain wrote: | | our perception is inherently flawed and this leads us to think we have free will |
As soon as you allow yourself to think that your own perception might be inherently flawed, then you can no longer believe anything! If your perception might be inherently flawed, then how do you know that anything is real? How do you know that you have really learned about science? How do you know that you were correct when you decided that the science made sense? All of this relies on your perception.
If you were to list all of the propositions that you have ever considered, from most likely to be true to least likely to be true, "I can make choices" would be tied for first at the very top, because you know for certain that you can make choices, just like you know for certain that you exist. "The current understanding of physics is correct" would be at the very bottom, because our current understanding of physics cannot be correct, since it is contradictory.
But actually, this isn't even important, because theories of physics do not require hard determinism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
heavenlyabyss
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 10, 2011
Posts: 530
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:26 am Post subject: Re: Free-will and Atheism |
|
|
| MCalavera wrote: | | Declension wrote: | | heavenlyabyss wrote: | | moral relativism is a dangerous concept |
We shouldn't reject concepts just because they're dangerous. Darwinism is a dangerous concept.
Moral relativism should be rejected because it is bad philosophy, not because it is dangerous. Moral relativists, just like hard determinists and solipsists, are forced into defending extremely silly positions that they cannot possibly hold. When your philosophy causes you to betray your own integrity, the philosophy is not fit for purpose. The point of philosophy is to explain what you know, not to insist that you don't actually know it. |
I go with hard determinism because of Occam's razor. Hard determinism explains everything in this reality more sufficiently without the need for an extra unnecessary (and, may I add, vaguely defined) entity called "free will".
Moral relativism is also not a bad one. I challenge any absolutist to come up with evidence for an absolute standard for our morals.
Both philosophies go along quite well with my integrity. In fact, denying them compels one to contradict reality in various aspects. |
Actually I cannot make an argument for moral absolutism. I will simply say that in some cases I am right and others are wrong, but if a person can change my mind through a well-reasoned argument, I will adjust my opinion. People should tell me I am wrong if they believe I am wrong. That doesn't mean I have to listen, but I am receptive to criticism for the most part.
The idea of hard determinism does not sit right with me but if you can give some scientific reason for why I should believe it, I might change my mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Oodain
big chief wulla bamboom alakaway
Joined: Jan 31, 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 5022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:51 am Post subject: Re: Free-will and Atheism |
|
|
| Declension wrote: | | Oodain wrote: | | our perception is inherently flawed and this leads us to think we have free will |
As soon as you allow yourself to think that your own perception might be inherently flawed, then you can no longer believe anything! If your perception might be inherently flawed, then how do you know that anything is real? How do you know that you have really learned about science? How do you know that you were correct when you decided that the science made sense? All of this relies on your perception.
If you were to list all of the propositions that you have ever considered, from most likely to be true to least likely to be true, "I can make choices" would be tied for first at the very top, because you know for certain that you can make choices, just like you know for certain that you exist. "The current understanding of physics is correct" would be at the very bottom, because our current understanding of physics cannot be correct, since it is contradictory.
But actually, this isn't even important, because theories of physics do not require hard determinism. |
the reason science is such a powerfull tool is excactly because it allows us to concisely share and test our beliefs and observations in a way that allows for objectivity,
we know human perception is flawed, the only discussion is how much, very very very few people make for reliable eye witnesses (even that is in dispute as the cases where true eidetic memory has been observed were never exhaustively tested)
then comes the case of human bias.
that is also why large swaths of even the western population will quite literally believe in anything(from conspiracies to the silliest of religiious cults)s) so in a way you have answered your own question.
as said untill we know what a choice even is neurologically (what affects them and how they form) it would be pure speculation to say if we have it or not.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
NarcissusSavage
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 31
Posts: 656
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:00 am Post subject: Re: Free-will and Atheism |
|
|
| Declension wrote: | | Oodain wrote: | | our perception is inherently flawed and this leads us to think we have free will |
As soon as you allow yourself to think that your own perception might be inherently flawed, then you can no longer believe anything! If your perception might be inherently flawed, then how do you know that anything is real? How do you know that you have really learned about science? How do you know that you were correct when you decided that the science made sense? All of this relies on your perception.
If you were to list all of the propositions that you have ever considered, from most likely to be true to least likely to be true, "I can make choices" would be tied for first at the very top, because you know for certain that you can make choices, just like you know for certain that you exist. "The current understanding of physics is correct" would be at the very bottom, because our current understanding of physics cannot be correct, since it is contradictory.
But actually, this isn't even important, because theories of physics do not require hard determinism. |
I don't really believe anything...and I acknowledge my perception is inherently flawed. I've accepted that everything I think could be flawed, I've accepted that everything I think I know could be wrong. Nothing is completely certain. I will out of necessity of communication sometimes speak as if I am certain of something, but even then I'm not completely certain of it. It's just practical to do so. Belief is silly, in my opinion, possibly even delusional.
I know I cannot make different choices other than the choices I make. Free will is a mind set, it is purely subjective, and the objective truth is determinism. Everything that has ever happened was going to happen exactly as it has happened, and the proof is that it did happen. This truth is painfully obvious.
The question we should be asking is not whether or not free will is real. The question of relevance and importance is why do people recoil from the fact that everything is already determined? What about that causes people to reject the truth?
_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
Maybe you are too?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
heavenlyabyss
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 10, 2011
Posts: 530
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:04 am Post subject: Re: Free-will and Atheism |
|
|
| NarcissusSavage wrote: | | Declension wrote: | | Oodain wrote: | | our perception is inherently flawed and this leads us to think we have free will |
As soon as you allow yourself to think that your own perception might be inherently flawed, then you can no longer believe anything! If your perception might be inherently flawed, then how do you know that anything is real? How do you know that you have really learned about science? How do you know that you were correct when you decided that the science made sense? All of this relies on your perception.
If you were to list all of the propositions that you have ever considered, from most likely to be true to least likely to be true, "I can make choices" would be tied for first at the very top, because you know for certain that you can make choices, just like you know for certain that you exist. "The current understanding of physics is correct" would be at the very bottom, because our current understanding of physics cannot be correct, since it is contradictory.
But actually, this isn't even important, because theories of physics do not require hard determinism. |
I don't really believe anything...and I acknowledge my perception is inherently flawed. I've accepted that everything I think could be flawed, I've accepted that everything I think I know could be wrong. Nothing is completely certain. I will out of necessity of communication sometimes speak as if I am certain of something, but even then I'm not completely certain of it. It's just practical to do so. Belief is silly, in my opinion, possibly even delusional.
I know I cannot make different choices other than the choices I make. Free will is a mind set, it is purely subjective, and the objective truth is determinism. Everything that has ever happened was going to happen exactly as it has happened, and the proof is that it did happen. This truth is painfully obvious.
The question we should be asking is not whether or not free will is real. The question of relevance and importance is why do people recoil from the fact that everything is already determined? What about that causes people to reject the truth? |
I appreciate your fluency with language, but you have not proven anything here. I don't mean that as an insult, I actually understand exactly what you are saying, but this is just not a scientific argument that I find convincing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
