Chuchulainn vs. the Wishful Thinkers, err, Atheists

Post Reply New Topic

By not doing God's will, you are doing Satan's will because Satan wants nothing more than for you to ignore and disobey His divine commandments. If you are willingly choosing atheism, you are willingly choosing to do Satan's bidding.

If you willingly choose to do what amounts to Satan's bidding, you are willingly (if indirectly) still doing it.

A = B
You willingly do B.
Therefore you willingly do A.

Since not believing in God leads people to Hell and you are arguing in support of atheism, you are supporting a position that, if people were persuaded by your arguments, would lead them to Hell. I suspect you do know Christians believe belief in God is requisite to eternal salvation.

God and country go together. Serving one's country preserves the order which reduces civil strife and sedition. If one's country is God fearing, patriotism is a hearty and healthy thing.

How does a rational interpretation of emotion reduce the case for rationally interpreting emotions?
What, you mean like helping depressed people to be less depressed through chemicals? Like helping Schizophrenics to be less crazy through chemicals? Like helping OCD people to not wash their hands until their skin comes off, with chemicals? Like helping Manic-Depressives to have more steady emotions, rather than blowing everything they own at the races and then trying to off themselves, with chemicals?
I will grant that the psychiatric industry is, to put it mildly, overzealous with their perscriptions, but do not attempt to downplay the good that has been done for people with chemical emotional imbalances, through the use of chemicals to help correct those imbalances.

You might not, because you are Christian; to Christians, only those things that are related to the Christian god are valuable.

I, however, am a scientist and a pantheist, and I do exult in those things.

Do you have any evidence that the removed elements are really essential?

The 'why' is that human populations whose (chemical) emotions allowed them to cooperate and to enjoy each other's presences survived better than populations whose emotions did not. People wo loved and supported their children had more surviving childrien (therefore more surviving copies of their own genes) than people who did not love and support their children.

The fact that HUmans seek more than what exists is not an argument for the existence of more.

Assumptions can be tested for. It's often not even difficult, once one asks the right question. Assumptions are controlled for to some degree in any experiment that has a 'control,' which is a sample not manipulated by the scientist.

A truly neutral viewpoint is indeed impossible. However, some viewpoints are closer to neutral (therefore, probably closer to objective reality) than others.

I strongly disagree. Theologians always begin with the presumption that their theology is correct, and consider holding onto that ("faith") presumption, in the face of any and all evidence to the contrary, to be a moral good.

Can you think of an example (that was not later disproven by science) of a scientist 'trying to assume away their bias'? Maybe scientists have faith in mathematics, but I think that mathematics is a much more rational grounding to base oneself on than the translated translations of translations of millenia-old desert theologies.

Simple. If there is nothing after death, then one must do all one can to help others in this life and enjoy it, for there's nothing after.



Not really. But it is there.

[/quote]

I don't here any christians asking you to save them, do you?
Think about it, isn't that why most of us are here in the first place? Saving atheists who may have been shaken in their logic by Chihuahua?
Well, maybe not.
If we had blind faith instead of simple logic and common sense, then we don't need anybody to save us, because faith isn't real, faith is believing in something you can't prove. Logic is easily proved, so we don't need any help.
Why are you trying to save people from logic anyway? What do you have against keeping an open mind to other beliefs? Do you think you are just so smart that you must be right and everybody else is wrong?
By the way, do you realize that a lot of your argument is worthless? You seem to keep forgetting that we don't believe in your god, so your literal take on the bible is not proving anything to us. You say things like "By not doing God's will, you are doing Satan's will", but we don't believe in god or satan, so from our prospective, what is this suppose to prove? You can't fight logic with faith, because faith is only in the mind of the individual.
Do you realize how many gods there have been throughout history? Do you realize how many mythologies there have been? Egyptian mythology has been around since before the bible was written, how do you know the Egyptian gods are fake but your god is real? How do you know Zeus is fake but your god is real? Is it just because it says so in the bible? Well the Egyptian Book of the Dead says the Egyptian gods are real, so whats so special about the bible that it is the only mythology book that is right? Do you think god talks to you or answers your prayers? Do you feel his presence? Last I heard, that voice in your head is called thoughts, everybody has them and they have nothing to do with god. If you believed something your whole life, of coarse your mind will trick you into feeling and thinking like it is real. There have been people of all religious beliefs throughout history who describe the same feelings of a godly presence, the same voices in their heads and the same prayers being answered. The difference is, they are not talking about your god, they are talking about their "false" gods who they made sacrifices to. So if you think that is just your god cleverly disguised, then why would he be favoring people who are breaking the first commandment?
You really have no idea how powerful the mind is. Your faith is all in your head, and all this proof you think you have is your mind playing tricks on you, because you never opened your mind to other beliefs and ideas.
It doesn't seem fair that you can believe in one book and one god but not all the thousands of others. What sets yours apart and makes your religion different and better than all the others?
Did you ever think this was all too convenient? Worship our god and follow our rules and you will be rewarded, but if you don't, you will be punished?
Doesn't that sound like a easy way to get weak minded people to get in line and follow rules?
It sure doesn't help that the bible was written in an age where almost every culture had their own mythology and laws weren't as easy to enforce. I mean, how convenient is that huh? How convenient is it that so many of the laws and rules of the bible matched the views of the people of that time?
Well I have a ton more to write, but I went waaay off topic already and I'm tired of writing now. You probably won't respond to this anyway.

Because nothing states that feeling emotions is the way to rationally deal with them. If anything it is more often taken as doctrine that emotions are the enemy of reason.

I don't mean helping people with problems through chemicals. I mean ignoring the experience, I mean drugging the experience, I mean destroying the emotional cores of people to create whatever new image one has in mind. My point has very little to do with chemical cures and everything to do with psychological manipulation and what is normally considered human degradation (soma for the masses, yo!)


Actually, throughout this entire argument I have never made any declaration of faith. However, Christians can exult in those things, the point I was making was rather a distinction between the mundane and the emotive. Really though, your pantheism is what accounts for some of these elements, and pantheism cannot be considered a purely rational action but rather a declaration of a belief about man's relation to the world.

The fact that we act as if they are there but do not state it. As a previous poster said, they feel righteous anger, but where does righteous anger come from if there is not a true concept of right? The distinction you tend to make is that emotions are existing chemicals but that we should still heed them, the direction that argument will take us is to the whys of heeding them as they can be changed or damaged as one may see fit, not only there is no more case for justice or proper human action in this world. It does go a step more towards the nonsensical with every man taking their own step forward as they please. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but the recognition that we are as lost as I claim is something I seek.

Ok? So? We don't live for evolution whether or not we live because of it. Saying that evolution exists does not explain away the problem at all. Saying emotions exist does not explain it away either. There must be a metaphysical assertion of ought to say how we should react to this world. Man's mechanics cannot change that he is a thinking creature, and that part should not be ignored.

I never said that more existed, only that we are warped to act for and as if more did.
Not the assumptions I speak of. There is no empirical philosophy in what I speak about. Just as I was saying with someone else, there is no meta-epistemology to invoke, and one cannot physically derive most of metaphysics.

Actually I completely disagree with that. We don't know objective reality so therefore the only view point we can invoke as neutral are the common assumptions, in our case we can only use some elements of logic and human psychology, but those could be rejected as well.
But you cannot disprove faith. If what you say is correct then these people are fideists and hold that faith is above everything else. That is a position that cannot be assailed, but it has nothing to do with whether or not they can understand philosophy very well. The fact of the matter is that nothing can be proved to be correct in absoluteness, so this assumption of faith is not strange at all.

Well, I never said that science was not effective at using its epistemological views, but that does not mean that scientists understand much else besides their epistemology and thus they see all things as a part of that same epistemology with greater ease. Mathematics is not a rational grounding, it is a technique. Being able to do a chi-squared test or a Laplace transform does not mean that one is good at analyzing things beyond the simple applications of that. Actually, I think most theologians also read more modern theology, which if one looks at history, was involved with most philosophical thought such as Kierkegaard's existentialism as I have mentioned, Occam's razor was developed by a theologian, and well, I have heard of some apologists who are looking towards Thomas Reid as an inspiration. Really though, you assert a meta-epistemology to pick an epistemology, there is no "rational" outside of motives, and a simple look at economic views of rationality can find that conclusion.

Bad derivation. You have not solved the Is-Ought problem, please try again. If there is nothing after death then there is nothing after death. No action of any form is a proper reaction... it can also be argued that no action of any form is an improper action either. One can decide to live in misery and at war with his fellow man just as easily as he can take your path, why could we not be megalomaniacs rather than epicurean saints? Why could we not be hedonists who live for a few flickering moments of joy? Why could we not kill ourselves now just to die? Based upon a similar strain of thought, Ayn Rand derived her Objectivist ethics, which on some levels stand against your own as they stand against the altruism you say is self-evident.

Bad derivation. You have not solved the Is-Ought problem, please try again. If there is nothing after death then there is nothing after death. No action of any form is a proper reaction... it can also be argued that no action of any form is an improper action either. One can decide to live in misery and at war with his fellow man just as easily as he can take your path, why could we not be megalomaniacs rather than epicurean saints? Why could we not be hedonists who live for a few flickering moments of joy? Why could we not kill ourselves now just to die? Based upon a similar strain of thought, Ayn Rand derived her Objectivist ethics, which on some levels stand against your own as they stand against the altruism you say is self-evident.

You're just dodging the question. Clearly the theists cannot all be right (surely everyone agrees that, say Zeus and the Christian god aren't the same god). Since all of them claim some form of revelation, then surely, because the revelations contradict one another, revelation is unreliable. Why should YOUR revelation be true and others false?

Emotions can be the enemy of reason - people often fall in love without any logic at all! But I think that you will find very few atheists who regard their emotions as 'the enemy'; the more common view is to acknowledge that they are irrational, that one must be more cautious when one is feeling emotional - and, otherwise, to enjoy them.



Again, I agree that the psychological industry is over-drugging its clients. However, I think that you're barking at the mailman here: yes, there is a stranger in the yard, but no, he isn't that dangerous. I don't think that atheists are any more likely to drug themselves into a plesant stupor (with alcohol or any other drug) than are the adherents of any religion. If anything, we are less likely to do so because we know that drugs might harm/alter our brains, and we know that our brains are all that we have. Someone who believes in a transcendent soul may believe that their immaterial soul is somehow protected from damage by drugs, and thus feel themselves immune from the negative effects.




That is true. I use the term 'pantheist' to describe my emotional response to the world, and 'atheist' to describe my rational response to it.



We (try to) heed our emotions as much as they should be heeded. The fact that an atheist sees rainbows are refracted light does not make the atheist appreciate them less than a theist; the fact that an atheist sees love as a chemical reaction does not mean that an atheist feels love less, or is less affected by their own emotions. We heed them because it is impossible not to.

No more case for justice!? Where the H@ll do you get that idea? Justice is a rational concept, not an emotional one.



The metaphysical addition to the theory is unnecessary. We do not need a metaphysical 'ought' to keep us from killing our neighbors; most of us have no desire to do so. We do not need a metaphysical 'ought' to explain human thoughts or feelings, or the need for justice, civility, love, compassion, etc. Frankly, I don't see what the 'problem' is.



Which is why physics is better than metaphysics: a physical theory can be tested for validity and discarded if false. A metaphysical theory cannot be tested. Seriously, though, what assumptions are you talking about? Because I seem to have taken your meaning for something else in the prior discourse.



I hadn't heard that, but I'm not too surprised. Darwin was a theologian-in-training, and most of the greatest thinkers in our history lived in times where one could be socially shunned (at best) or tortured and then burned at the stake (at worst) if one admitted to a lack of faith.

Well, by stating that they are irrational you are merely stating what I am on some level. Emotions are outside of reason, there is not a rational reason why they must be given credence. By accepting these emotions as a basis for human existence an assertion beyond reason alone is made.

I am not really barking at the mailman. Really I am not sure I see that, most theists end up having some code in their doctrine that speaks against drugs and bodily harm, the prohibition movement was supported by many churches for instance, but, what I am merely saying is that there is not a rational reason why a book such as Brave New World frightens us so much. If we start accepting the irrationality of man then why not give him the right to define his life by things other than reason instead of lauding it?


Right, and ultimately I do not speak against pantheism, I speak against a rationalist atheism that does not fully explore its limits as a belief system and that tends to on some level disdain philosophy while delving into it.

But to state that emotions should be heeded or that there is an optimal level of heeding makes a statement that does not have a framework to support it. Optimization requires some good to optimize to, choosing a good means making a value judgment, value judgments imply a morality, morality stands outside of rationality. I never said anything about how atheists live, but there is a tension between how these things are treated and the fact that the supporting framework for action does not exist. It is very possible to change many emotions and twist the human mind into many things.
From the nature of justice. Justice is an emotional concept, not a rational one, to state otherwise ignores how we use the term justice in the universal sense. Rational justice can only be defined as judgment according to current laws, which can be often seen as unjust as people see with laws in some Islamic states in regards to women. Our notions of justice are different than law, and our idea of justice created the law, not vice versa.


Yes, in fact we do. We need a reason to not kill them in order to make the distinction between killing and not killing. Whether or not people desire this is irrelevant, that is a physical trait of the world, our problem transcends the physicality of the world and merely is a statement on how we should react to these physical traits. We aren't explaining thoughts and feelings here, we are actually arguing on actions. Need for example is a presumptive claim, nothing is necessary, therefore nothing is needed. Need only exists once one has an ought in mind, like a suicidal man does not need food, or drink, but a man who seeks life does. A society of individuals acting purely on their own ends does not need justice, justice becomes an empty concept as these people would never give weight to a notion of justice. Instead, justice is negated and we have either a minimal state or non-existent state as they seek their own ends without regard for the whole. In order to impose justice, in order to create law and government, we need an ought, in order to live life and value we must have a statement of what should be valued. You say we don't need that because you have already stated this, however, there is no underlying reason why man should value anything. Life and death are merely human distinctions, the atoms that make up the man do not care.

Yes, and why mathematics is better than love. Mathematical proofs can be examined for truth and discarded. Love cannot be tested..... Obviously, I do not consider your statement valid. You compare like with unlike, physics and metaphysics are not in competition and are not different theories, if anything physics is a metaphysical theory. I speak of every assumption, these can include inductive logic, or even logic as a whole, these can include sensory perception, or the basis of valuation. Logically the statements we will run into are going to be true and false statements, but we base our lives on things we would cannot prove the truth or falseness of. What meaning? I mean, all assumptions on the world, everyone must have assumptions, and the most basic assumptions cannot be proven.

Faith does not prevent an understanding of philosophy, reality is a bigger question, but I think we form faith because we cannot understand reality, not that faith prevents us from understanding it. Really though, faith and an understanding of philosophy can coexist depending upon what the faith dictates, some faiths do not demand strong philosophical bases or conform to current philosophical thought. Who says we can prove faith valid or invalid? Logic is unassailable by logic, should that invalidate logic? In fact, I do not think that logic can be proved, why can I not simply assert "I reject logic and accept a faith", how is it any worse or better logically than accepting logic and rejecting faith?

They are methods that are correct if all of the assumptions within them are correct. Logic is correct if logic is correct. Metaphysics and math are not at war either, they are different subjects, however, what we speak of is whether a mathematician would be a good metaphysicist. Math isn't numbers, it is techniques based upon logical derivation, that are applicable to a set framework, but a much different framework than the one we speak of.


It is true that we did come from more pious times where bad things like that did happen. But if we accept that theologians built the foundations of Western Civilization, what makes them suddenly incompetent now? Theology doesn't compete with science, it argues on philosophy. What you may be fearing is that faith can invade areas where the epistemology denies certain outcomes, which is an issue with the ID movement. Ultimately, the issue falls down to the fact that science often presumes itself to be truth rather than a well-respected epistemological framework, however, too many ignore the lack of metaphysics in science and the importance of metaphysics for constructing the world. Ultimately this leaves people who consider science complete stuck in a weak rationalist philosophy in a world that demands existentialism to more fully understand. This is likely because rationalism is the basis of western philosophy and on some level it is what is pushed into us at the youngest of ages, however, the existentialist reaction to rationalism isn't.

Actually, no. The closest I ever came to asking for scientific evidence was when I suggested you put forth data that could form testable hypotheses. If you're claiming that religion is solely based on faith, no such data exists. In that case, debating the existence of God from a scientific perspective is pointless. Nothing more needs to be said on that issue.

However, the above is not the same question. Asking you why Christianity is the "right" way when compared to other belief systems is still a valid question, and you can't hide behind the science/faith division if I suggest the idea of convincing someone of another religion to convert to Christianity.

So again, I ask, why Christianity, and not Judaism? Islam? Buddhism? Hinduism? Satanism? etc.



You're making assumptions again. How do you know that the mind of an atheist is unable to feel religious feelings?

How do you know that not having religious feelings amounts to being "halfway dead?" Perhaps for yourself, a Godless life is only half a life, but your opinions aren't everyone's.

Actually the question of God is completely withing the realm of science.

The empirical and scientific method of testing whether Islam, Christianity or Judaism is the better religion would be as simple as setting up a test where we test thing like sexual abuse, divorce rates, drug use, unemployment etc. and compare their prevalence among different religious groups. To date all the date runs contrary to common opinion, increased religiousity is correlated with increases ind violent behavior, drug abuse, sexual abuse, divorce, etc.

For the sake of argument, 80% of prison inmates are evangelical christians while only 0.2% are atheist. On that basis alone it's fair to say that atheists have a better system of morality.

No, it really isn't.
No, it really wouldn't. There are additional variables here that cannot be controlled for, not only that but one can sincerely make the argument that a claim to religion and crime means a claim to hypocrisy. There is nothing saying that the true God wouldn't have false followers.

Who is to say that prison is immoral? You have already failed because you attempt to eliminate the philosophy from a philosophical argument. Not only that but this statistic completely ignores the fact that this society is culturally Christian, with a strong background in evangelical Christianity, while it maintains strong materialist undercurrents in more higher level education due to our Western background in secular thought. This means that IQ and atheism will correlate because of the undercurrents of our culture and ultimately this will lead to the results we see. There are ultimately some sociological elements of religion and some indeterminate elements of whether or not true faith exists in any sample population. Really though, trying to squeeze the philosophy out of a philosophical argument is like trying to remove sound from music, nothing can result from it.

No, the reason you end up in jail is because of something immoral you did in the first place. Its not that theres something immoral about prison. Jaybob makes a lot more sense in this case than you do.

That is only because you aren't understanding my argument. My point is basically "where does immoral come from?". Immoral really cannot exist without an absolute moral framework and absolute moral frameworks are not things I have ever seen proven. The distinction you make is not my argument. Jaybob does not make much sense, I already laid forward some strong elements of my case as there is an assumption that the metaphysics will affect the physics in this highly measurable manner, yet, such an assumption isn't necessary.

Apparently I took something literal again in that case.

You already said that society has a heavy christian culture/background. How did that happen? Murder and force.
Yet everyone turns a blind eye to it, and over to something that defies them of their natural instincts. Now THAT is what I dont understand. Maybe you can elaborate?