A question for atheists/etc

[So]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: So

Did you miss the part in my other post where I said that morality doesn't have to come from a diety? It's wrong because people are rational agents who own their and by extension, it's product: Physical property. Therefore, it's immoral to rob from another because you are in essence enslaving them for their time and in turn, denying that they are a rational agent -- that is, taking away their humanity.

Maybe it is rational, if you were sure you wouldn't be caught (which you can't be, so it wouldn't be rational in reality) but it's still immoral

But aren't morals just opinions too? Usually forced on others who have a different opinion but are fewer in number?

But I guess I was getting at it being irrational, not immoral.

Joe

'Morals' are, unfortunately, an overly broad term. There are some morals that can be called objective -- that all functioning societies have agreed upon and can be demonstrably drawn from the basic conclusion that humans are rational creatures that own their will (murder, theft). Other 'morals' are broader and have been disagreed upon by society, mostly, these 'morals' have been imposed on the people as you describe -- as emotional opinions of a few (see laws on interracial marriges).

 

[curran]

Sure, I get in my car hoping that nothing happens, but direct observation has shown that the opposite can in fact happen. I'm not quite sure why you say you don't understand the difference b/w faith, or trust, in everyday events & faith in some unobservable god. I have "faith" you can figure this one out, but then you might not. Sure I have no "concrete" facts right now, but seriously, cut the crap. I think you get the idea.

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: So


Making a rational conclusion based on the facts at hand, and then finding out that you reached the wrong conclusion due to an error in your logic or insufficient data doesn't mean you are living on faith. Additionally, you keep moving back to that term -- faith. We don't have 'faith' that an automobile will start, we have a rational expectation based on previous experience. Furthermore, when they travel to work, they don't have faith that they will get there safely, they are making yet another rational decision based on statistical risk, past experience and knowledge of concrete factors.

I just looked up "faith" on the FreeDictionary (FireFox Add-in)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=faith

and here's the #1 (first) definition:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

I would say that believing that your car will start one morning, because it has started every other morning, would fit into this definition of faith. I would have a confident belief in the truth of the idea that my car would start.

In the cheating spouse category, it would be that I had a confident belief in the the truth that she was trustworthy.

This is what I think of when I think of faith.... the confident belief in the truth of something, even though you cannot mathematically prove it.

Joe

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: So


Making a rational conclusion based on the facts at hand, and then finding out that you reached the wrong conclusion due to an error in your logic or insufficient data doesn't mean you are living on faith. Additionally, you keep moving back to that term -- faith. We don't have 'faith' that an automobile will start, we have a rational expectation based on previous experience. Furthermore, when they travel to work, they don't have faith that they will get there safely, they are making yet another rational decision based on statistical risk, past experience and knowledge of concrete factors.

I just looked up "faith" on the FreeDictionary (FireFox Add-in)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=faith

and here's the #1 (first) definition:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

I would say that believing that your car will start one morning, because it has started every other morning, would fit into this definition of faith. I would have a confident belief in the truth of the idea that my car would start.

In the cheating spouse category, it would be that I had a confident belief in the the truth that she was trustworthy.

This is what I think of when I think of faith.... the confident belief in the truth of something, even though you cannot mathematically prove it.

Joe

Again, that's a common defintion of the word faith. You're trying to use linguistics to conflate two completely different things -- rational expectation based on past experience and emotional trust based on personal feelings.

Not that it's intentional, it's just the nature of our fine language

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: curran
Sure, I get in my car hoping that nothing happens, but direct observation has shown that the opposite can in fact happen. I'm not quite sure why you say you don't understand the difference b/w faith, or trust, in everyday events & faith in some unobservable god. I have "faith" you can figure this one out, but then you might not. Sure I have no "concrete" facts right now, but seriously, cut the crap. I think you get the idea.

I fully realize that they are VERY different levels of faith, but I believe them to both be faith none the less. Heck... as far as I'm concerned, it takes some level of faith to type this and believe that there are other people who exist that are reading and responding. I have no hard evidence in front of me to prove differently, so I take it on faith (see posted definition) that you really exist.

Crap cut?



Joe

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: So

Again, that's a common defintion of the word faith. You're trying to use linguistics to conflate two completely different things -- rational expectation based on past experience and emotional trust based on personal feelings.

Ok, we may have a semantical impasse. I believe that both "rational expectation based on past experience" and "emotional trust based on personal feelings" are simply different levels of the same thing and you see them as totally different. I can even agree that the latter is a much more extreme example, but still feel they are both examples of faith.

Joe

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: So

Again, that's a common defintion of the word faith. You're trying to use linguistics to conflate two completely different things -- rational expectation based on past experience and emotional trust based on personal feelings.

Ok, we may have a semantical impasse. I believe that both "rational expectation based on past experience" and "emotional trust based on personal feelings" are simply different levels of the same thing and you see them as totally different. I can even agree that the latter is a much more extreme example, but still feel they are both examples of faith.

Joe

See, I would argue that they are fundamentally different based solely on the fact that one is based on evidence and the other is not. However, I agree that we seem to be talking across channels here, so I'm in favor of dropping it.

 

[curran]

Originally posted by: Netopia



I fully realize that they are VERY different levels of faith, but I believe them to both be faith none the less. Heck... as far as I'm concerned, it takes some level of faith to type this and believe that there are other people who exist that are reading and responding. I have no hard evidence in front of me to prove differently, so I take it on faith (see posted definition) that you really exist.

Crap cut?



Joe

Don't play dumb now. Sure you have no hard evidence such as a certified photo of me typing a response, but your past observations such as particular responses have probably given you enough evidence to know that it's not just some supercomputer making up these posts.

 

[Netopia]

Ok... not much sense continuing when we're only really debating the meaning of the words involved. Thanks for a RATIONAL conversation!

Take Care,

Joe

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: curran

Originally posted by: Netopia



I fully realize that they are VERY different levels of faith, but I believe them to both be faith none the less. Heck... as far as I'm concerned, it takes some level of faith to type this and believe that there are other people who exist that are reading and responding. I have no hard evidence in front of me to prove differently, so I take it on faith (see posted definition) that you really exist.

Crap cut?



Joe

Don't play dumb now. Sure you have no hard evidence such as a certified photo of me typing a response, but your past observations such as particular responses have probably given you enough evidence to know that it's not just some supercomputer making up these posts.

I absolutely believe that you are real. But I don't have any direct proof do I? Me simply believing that my perceptions are trustworthy aren't enough to elevate something beyong (my posted) definition of faith. The reason magicians amaze people so is that the average person equates what they see with what is real, even when it isn't!

Joe

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Netopia
Ok... not much sense continuing when we're only really debating the meaning of the words involved. Thanks for a RATIONAL conversation!

Take Care,

Joe

Indeed. :beer:

 

[curran]

I'm getting somewhat lost in what we are actually discussing now. Wasn't the whole idea concerning things we have faith in which CAN be proved versus those which CANNOT?

 

[curran]

damn...so much for work today

 

[linkgoron]

-hasn't read anything in this thread-

Meh, early christianity didn't even have Jesus (as an actual person, they had him only as an idea), and the rebirth and all that stuff was added later, (300 years after the begining of Christianity? 400? Don't remember)...
The christian holidays are all Pagan holidays anyway...

And BTW, if I don't believe in Jesus why does that make me an atheist? What about Jews, or any other religion?

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: curran
damn...so much for work today

WOW... from a direction not even considered, a statement we can probably TOTALLY agree on!

Joe

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: linkgoron
-hasn't read anything in this thread-

Meh, early christianity didn't even have Jesus (as an actual person, they had him only as an idea), and the rebirth and all that stuff was added later, (300 years after the begining of Christianity? 400? Don't remember)...
The christian holidays are all Pagan holidays anyway...

And BTW, if I don't believe in Jesus why does that make me an atheist? What about Jews, or any other religion?

First, allow me to say "WHAT"... as in "What in the heck are you talking about?" I think you may need to do a bit of rereading of some history books. Many things can be debated about the diety of Christ or even what certain Christian tenant may be, but I think you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that the early Christians didn't believe in a person named Jesus.

As for you being an atheist because of not believing in Jesus.... who said that makes you an atheist? The same person who said early Christians didn't believe in Jesus perhaps?

Joe

 

[BrokenVisage]

marked for home reading and responding..

 

[skace]

Faith is belief in something without the need for proof. The second you require observeable proof, it is no longer faith. Any highschool religion teacher will explain this concept to you when trying to understand how people can believe in something they have never experienced. You do not need faith in gravity because knocking something off a table will prove it to you. You do not need faith in opposing forces because slamming into your door will prove it to you. You do not need faith that a car can move based on what man has invented because someone can build a car in front of your eyes and make it move. What someone can not prove to you is that God ever existed or that we will ever go anywhere beyond where the maggots in the ground take us.

You constantly use the term faith in reference to mathematics simply because you do not know math. But lack of knowledge is not the same as an unproveable idea.

 

[linkgoron]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: linkgoron
-hasn't read anything in this thread-

Meh, early christianity didn't even have Jesus (as an actual person, they had him only as an idea), and the rebirth and all that stuff was added later, (300 years after the begining of Christianity? 400? Don't remember)...
The christian holidays are all Pagan holidays anyway...

And BTW, if I don't believe in Jesus why does that make me an atheist? What about Jews, or any other religion?

First, allow me to say "WHAT"... as in "What in the heck are you talking about?" I think you may need to do a bit of rereading of some history books. Many things can be debated about the diety of Christ or even what certain Christian tenant may be, but I think you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that the early Christians didn't believe in a person named Jesus.

I saw a TV show about christianity on the science channel... From what they said Jesus was basically some sort of an idea, and more of a person to inspire to be as, than an actualy guy that walks on water, or is the son of god, or all that stuff...

As for you being an atheist because of not believing in Jesus.... who said that makes you an atheist? The same person who said early Christians didn't believe in Jesus perhaps?

hmmmm
Topic Title: A question for atheists/etc
Topic Summary: What makes you not believe in Jesus?

 

[dogooder]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: dogooder

I think it is one of the most remarkable and satisfying things that evolutionary psychology can explain our sense of meaning. (I'm sorry if this is the "internal programming" or "instinct" argument.) I think my understanding of this was one of the main reasons why I finally abandoned religion.

If you would... expand on that thought some... I'm curious.

Joe

For example, it can explain why we tend to value our blood relatives more than strangers (since they share some of our genes); it can explain love, as a way of tying our hands to guarantee commitment; it can explain altruism, because often the sum is greater than the parts. I think one of the main misconceptions is in thinking that the selfishness of genes implies the selfishness of an individual, but this is not true. A person's (and any social animal's) survival very much depends on the help of others, so there is a real benefit in being altruistic. Another misconception is that this somehow leads to moral relativity, but in the same way that is false. These ideas might not all pan out; as So pointed out, some may result just from the fact that we are rational agents and depend on each other for survival, thus some "universal morality" may be discovered. But I think much of it is not, seeing as how our emotions are very much tied to our sense of morality. There also may be a "dimmer switch" that we can use to adjust our morality, as I think we have seen a general trend in becoming, say, less violent and more tolerant (bill of rights, minority and women's rights).

Anyway, I think science answers (not fully, yet) a lot of questions in much more detail than religion can. There may be some questions that we can never answer with science (consciousness, what happened "before" the big-bang--the things that our minds haven't been designed (by evolution) to be able to understand (perhaps)), but the amazing amount of things that science can explain, and the degree to which it's pushed aside religion in those areas, and especially the way in which it can explain the phenomenon of religion, gives me every bit of reason to believe in science and absolutely no reason to believe in religion, aside from whatever psychological benefits (meditation and so on) it can provide. I really think we're lucky to be living at a time in which science is making so much progress in explaining ourselves and our place in the world.

 

[kenji4life]

Ha. I find a major problem with much of the arguement here. While being widely accepted as the most probable among much of the scientific community, the big bang is still a theory.
It has not been proven, nor can it be in our lifetimes, that the universe is not infinite and that movement within is natural (see steady state theory) There is as much good evidence to prove this theory as the big bang, however the big bang is a creationist theory and is therefore more easily accepted by society because of the very fact that people such as Netopia can use it to 'disprove' atheism.

Sorry, but the big bang is a creationist theory at heart and cannot be accepted by myself and many others.

What's outside 'the universe' if it's enclosed. All we really did with the big bang is moved from the 'world' to the 'new world' to the 'round world' to the 'galaxy', 'universe' etc. Now it's just the 'new universe'
why can't we accept that maybe the universe is infinite and with infinity is infinite possibility.

Disprove THAT.

Btw I'm not an atheist at all. I just have a different definition of "god". One mans god may be a man to another god. Where does it end?

 

[kenji4life]

Oh, and before anyone else tries this arguement, I'll do it for them. Say the big bang IS proven and is the definite cause of the creation of our known universe. How then do we know that this 'universe' we then know is not a miniscule speck among a neverending expanse?

 

[imported_obsidian]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: So
As I said, I don't want to debate the 'instinct' argument. I feel it has merit, you don't -- that's another topic.

What do you mean what logical reason could there be? It seems to me that the benefits of treating other humans as rational agents are patent, and once you distinguish between rational agents and everything else, the rest 'flows' logically.

Ok... let me give a scenario.

Let's say that a person with no belief in a diety who has predefined right and wrong is walking down the street. This person sees an elderly gentleman with HUGE gold rings encrusted with fine jewels on every single finger of each hand. The person also knows that if he attacks and kills this man and steals all of the rings that he will never get caught. He also knows that the money from said rings will put both him and his offspring in a better economic situation. From a purely logical point of view, why would he not kill and take? He and his would only benefit. There is no right and wrong... and even if instinct told him not to, we often overcome instinct to protect or provide for our families.

To me, logically, the world teaches the natural laws of survival of the fittest and might makes right. Why then do we (even if by instinct) have some OTHER law controlling our minds?

Joe

You can have morals without belief in a higher diety. I am not sure why so many deists seem to think that atheists make choices based strictly on their personal benefit as opposed to a moral choice. The threat of eternal damnation isn't needed to keep people from stealing or murdering even if they could get away with it.

Yes, I think humans have some sort of preprogrammed distinction between good and bad. I just don't see how a God is needed for that to be there. Oh, and I am agnostic.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: kenji4life
Ha. I find a major problem with much of the arguement here. While being widely accepted as the most probable among much of the scientific community, the big bang is still a theory.

STOP SAYING SOMETHING'S ONLY A THEORY, THEORIES ARE THE HIGHEST FORM THERE
IS!
STOP SAYING SOMETHING'S ONLY A THEORY, THEORIES ARE THE HIGHEST FORM THERE IS!
STOP SAYING SOMETHING'S ONLY A THEORY, THEORIES ARE THE HIGHEST FORM THERE IS!
STOP SAYING SOMETHING'S ONLY A THEORY, THEORIES ARE THE HIGHEST FORM THERE IS!
STOP SAYING SOMETHING'S ONLY A THEORY, THEORIES ARE THE HIGHEST FORM THERE IS!
STOP SAYING SOMETHING'S ONLY A THEORY, THEORIES ARE THE HIGHEST FORM THERE IS!
STOP SAYING SOMETHING'S ONLY A THEORY, THEORIES ARE THE HIGHEST FORM THERE IS!
STOP SAYING SOMETHING'S ONLY A THEORY, THEORIES ARE THE HIGHEST FORM THERE IS!
STOP SAYING SOMETHING'S ONLY A THEORY, THEORIES ARE THE HIGHEST FORM THERE IS!

 

[kenji4life]

Okay.. someone needs to lay off the crack pipe.

Nice arguement by the way. I guess noone can dispute the steady state.
oh and by the way, I only said theory once, not 9 times. and I didn't say it was "only" a theory. Only that it was a theory and not accepted fact. And stop trying to shove that crap in my face, any idiot knows that you can sit here and say that everything in the universe is a theory, including that we are breathing air, there is no spoon, etc, but really cut the crap if you can't respond maturely.