Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Danpech · 03-24-2002, 07:35 AM

At <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000157&p=3" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000157&p=3</a> Kent Stevens said:

Quote:

It is quite simple why God made us so that we would rebel intensely against him. He is a bad engineer who always passes the buck for bad workmanship. It is part of the divine mystery of engineering that products fail.

Are you a product, in that sense, of your father? Or, as a contrasting question, are you a product of an uncaring physical universe which has somehow evolved you to care so much about things such as that there is no God? You pose us as mere products of God (whom you deny exists), yet you seem determined to believe that things only come from things which have what the products have. So, how do you have feelings, values, a sense of truth and falsehood, etc, if you came from a mindless and uncaring universe?

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: Danpech ]

GunnerJ · 03-24-2002, 11:00 AM

A huge, embarrasing non-sequitir. I would have hoped that your post would have something to do with what you're replying to.

spin · 03-24-2002, 12:28 PM

Danpech to Kent Stevens:
--------------------------
Are you a product, in that sense, of your father? Or, as a contrasting question, are you a product of an uncaring physical universe which has somehow evolved you to care so much about things such as that there is no God?
--------------------------

I'm a product of my mother and my father (my mother did most of the work) and of an uncaring physical universe. I didn't know anything about any of these at the time.

Danpech to Kent Stevens:
--------------------------
You pose us as mere products of God (whom you deny exists), yet you seem determined to believe that things only come from things which have what the products have.
--------------------------

Along with bubonic plague, terrorism, George Dubbaya, piranha, AIDS, anacondas, and other such lovely creations.

Danpech to Kent Stevens:
--------------------------
So, how do you have feelings, values, a sense of truth and falsehood, etc, if you came from a mindless and uncaring universe?
--------------------------

You might like to get interested in the evolution of sentiments... oh, but of course, you want people born with these things, like good little images of your god. But a scientifc study of the history of feelings and values on your part might stop the lack of logic in your thought.

(And let's not talk about innate ethics, when an entire population can subjugate another, as was done in the American south with Black Americans.)

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]

Danpech · 03-24-2002, 02:06 PM

Evolution of sentiments? Does that include the sentiment of disgust over gross falsehoods and the gross selfishness-motivated oppressions that arise out of it? Where's the ethical approval of brute competition here? And, which falsehoods are we refering to, those based on theism only, or those based on atheism as well? If there is no God, then it just seems strange to me that the universe could evolve life forms which, by their very evolved nature, seem compelled against logic itself to believe in one. I can't help it if I'm the product of evolution. I just don't see the atheist argument as having the supreme logic or the supreme valuation. Where did you get yours from, and should I trust it? I can hardly trust those of most anybody no matter what they believe, so why should trust those of people who believe that we all evolved from lifeless cosmic junk?

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:
Danpech to Kent Stevens:
--------------------------
You pose us as mere products of God (whom you deny exists), yet you seem determined to believe that things only come from things which have what the products have.
--------------------------

Along with bubonic plague, terrorism, George Dubbaya, piranha, AIDS, anacondas, and other such lovely creations.

When you die, that's the end of you, so why should you care what the world is like, including that some people believe that there is a good and all-powerful Creator of the (initially good) conditions?

Of course, if I die and then that's the end of me, then, if theism gives me a social upper hand, what do I care if it is false? Why not join me? Love your friends and hate your enemies, I say.

And much of the above is one very big piece of logic in the form of a very thorough sarcasm over the whole debate. I'm a simple guy, and I'd rather myself just leave it all and live in peace. As if there were someplace to go. But, what is this that does not allow us to live in peace? How is it that people can honestly believe in things that are, in reality, simply not true, and they having the reasoning to actually believe that it is true (which is the party that lacks the bigger picture?)? What is their motive, really, for believing a falsehood, or is sheer ignorance the sum of the cause? If we all have a self-dishonest motive, so that it is easier to believe in a falsehood which seems true than in a higher truth which is true, did that motive evolve too?

John Page · 03-24-2002, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Danpech:
I just don't see the atheist argument as having the supreme logic or the supreme valuation. Where did you get yours from, and should I trust it?

I'm an atheist. I don't think atheism does have a 'supreme argument'. I adopted atheism because I believe religion is just a bunch of weak truths and moralism dressed up with inconsistent, hypocritical propoganda. I don't "believe in" atheism, its just a position.

Quote:

Originally posted by Danpech:

I can hardly trust those of most anybody no matter what they believe, so why should trust those of people who believe that we all evolved from lifeless cosmic junk?

Liefeless cosmic junk! Careful how you are refering to somebody's mother!

Daniel:

If you care to join my thread on a God Theorem for a serious debate on whether a theistic god can truly exist, its looking a little sparse so I can recommend it. <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000186" target="_blank">Link to God Theorem thread</a>

Cheers!

hinduwoman · 03-24-2002, 03:46 PM

Dan, if you are waiting for atheists to give you an Absolute impersonal source of moral values, you will wait forever. Our moral values come from the mental makeup of human beings, not from some outside agency.

spin · 03-24-2002, 07:31 PM

Danpech:
--------------
Evolution of sentiments?
--------------

Uh-huh. What's the problem? You have evolution of mathematical ideas, evolution of logic, evolution of language and thought, evolution of music, evolution of literature, etc., etc.

Danpech:
--------------
Does that include the sentiment of disgust over gross falsehoods and the gross selfishness-motivated oppressions that arise out of it?
--------------

Yeah, sure, why not?

Danpech:
--------------
Where's the ethical approval of brute competition here?
--------------

Isn't that what public games are a vestige of?

Danpech:
--------------
And, which falsehoods are we refering to, those based on theism only, or those based on atheism as well? If there is no God, then it just seems strange to me that the universe could evolve life forms which, by their very evolved nature, seem compelled against logic itself to believe in one.
--------------

That's apparently because you haven't thought about it. First imagine the world without any scientific knowledge whatsoever, a world in which almost everything that happened had no reason or meaning, as one turned the light of exterior perception on brighter. Things happened by themselves and just as people had something that gave them life so did most other things. The world needs explanation. Animism was probably the earliest form of explanation: everything had a life or a "soul". Here we are on the road to evolution of your god incidentally.

Some things had more strength or greatness than others. Why is it that some stars moved and others didn't? Obviously those which moved had great life. Why was there a connection between things that happened in the sky and things that happened on the earth? We are dealing with early attempts to understand the world. You can see that there is little justification in this sort of stuff, but you'll find it in the earliest traces of religions.

Certain great forces had to be placated -- and there is an evolution of the ceremonies of placation. From these great forces we have the development of things that can best be described by us as gods. And from them an eventual monotheism. Monotheism seems to have hit Judaism through contact with the Persians.

The important thing is that logic didn't have anything directly to do with the process. Logic wasn't available as it hadn't evolved at the time. We had to wait for people like Aristotle to codify simple logic such as syllogisms. Nevertheless, an explanation of the world has always been necessary to deal with the world. When you can't explain the world in any other way you explain it through the simple things you do know, giving entity status to other things. Gods seem natural to me as astrology, though both are unrelated to the real world.

Danpech:
--------------
I can't help it if I'm the product of evolution. I just don't see the atheist argument as having the supreme logic or the supreme valuation. Where did you get yours from, and should I trust it?
--------------

The first steps in dealing with the world come from developing tools with which to analyse it and rules which govern the application of the tools. You also need to know that when there is not enough evidence to answer a question, it is best to leave the question unanswered, because any answer you will divine may easily be wrong. There are no hard and fast rules for living in this world other than that this world must be treated case for case. Today's answers might not be useful tomorrow. Society tends to help protect the individual from most sudden changes in the perceptual world. Should you trust my logic? Of course not. You need to develop a methodology of your own, in which you are capable of challenging *everything* before you (and I mean everything), if necessary, so that you can have some security of the value of things. No, I'm not saying that you have to question everything all the time, but that everything, must be able to withstand analysis and judgement, for, if it can't, it is not useful.

Danpech:
--------------
I can hardly trust those of most anybody no matter what they believe, so why should trust those of people who believe that we all evolved from lifeless cosmic junk?
--------------

Don't trust them. Learn to analyse and learn to survive as an independent being -- well, semi-independent.

Danpech to Kent Stevens:
--------------
You pose us as mere products of God (whom you deny exists), yet you seem determined to believe that things only come from things which have what the products have.
--------------

spin:
--------------
Along with bubonic plague, terrorism, George Dubbaya, piranha, AIDS, anacondas, and other such lovely creations.
--------------

Danpech:
--------------
When you die, that's the end of you, so why should you care what the world is like, including that some people believe that there is a good and all-powerful Creator of the (initially good) conditions?
--------------

I am a part of humankind, a part of the life on this world, a part of this world. If that is not sufficient reason, how is the belief of a god who created bubonic plague or earthquakes or starvation or stories about life after this one going to be more sufficient?

Danpech:
--------------
Of course, if I die and then that's the end of me, then, if theism gives me a social upper hand, what do I care if it is false? Why not join me? Love your friends and hate your enemies, I say.
--------------

Why should you care about anything anyway when you believe in a god and you've got your meal ticket to heaven and this world is just a chrysalis stage anyway for the good guys, while the bad guys get hell as a result from failing the crash-dummy test? There is no reason to care because of a god. Love your enemies they say, but there was a great deal of love during the American civil war, wasn't there? Two god-fearing armies squared off against each other with the desire to kill the other. The important thing for many of those religionists who do "good" deeds in this world is to win souls for their god, not to do good things for the people. When the inquisitor tortured people it was for the sake of their souls, not their bodies. This world to the religionist is not worth worrying about. You, Danpech, have the choice, is it worth worrying about intrinsically and not because some god is supposed to have told you to worry?

Danpech:
--------------
And much of the above is one very big piece of logic in the form of a very thorough sarcasm over the whole debate.
--------------

I don't think so.

Danpech:
--------------
I'm a simple guy, and I'd rather myself just leave it all and live in peace. As if there were someplace to go. But, what is this that does not allow us to live in peace?
--------------

Money, power or religion.

Danpech:
--------------
How is it that people can honestly believe in things that are, in reality, simply not true, and they having the reasoning to actually believe that it is true (which is the party that lacks the bigger picture?)? What is their motive, really, for believing a falsehood, or is sheer ignorance the sum of the cause? If we all have a self-dishonest motive, so that it is easier to believe in a falsehood which seems true than in a higher truth which is true, did that motive evolve too?
--------------

The major reason is to have a way to face the world. This is always needed. The struggle to survive also becomes a mental struggle as one becomes more aware through evolving perceptions. Explanations are explanations whether they are correct or they are not. People need explanations. You do, or you wouldn't be asking.

spin · 03-24-2002, 07:40 PM

Incidentally, Danpech, can you imagine the situation before science had developed a theory to explain where humans came from, when a theory was needed, that someone could have developed the idea of a god moulding man from earth or clay? It obviously didn't happen that way, but it made sense to people thousands of years ago and it gave a certain relationship between the people and the land.

The Egyptian story about the god Khnum creating humans on a potter's wheel is not too different. Making people out of clay or out of earth. It didn't happen, but it explains how we got here. In Mesopotamia we got here by being moulded from the blood of Tiamat.

Every culture had some sort of explanation about how we got here. Obviously an explanation was necessary. Appreciate the explanations for what they were, means to deal with a strange apparently hostile world.

03-24-2002, 12:28 PM	#3
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Danpech to Kent Stevens: -------------------------- Are you a product, in that sense, of your father? Or, as a contrasting question, are you a product of an uncaring physical universe which has somehow evolved you to care so much about things such as that there is no God? -------------------------- I'm a product of my mother and my father (my mother did most of the work) and of an uncaring physical universe. I didn't know anything about any of these at the time. Danpech to Kent Stevens: -------------------------- You pose us as mere products of God (whom you deny exists), yet you seem determined to believe that things only come from things which have what the products have. -------------------------- Along with bubonic plague, terrorism, George Dubbaya, piranha, AIDS, anacondas, and other such lovely creations. Danpech to Kent Stevens: -------------------------- So, how do you have feelings, values, a sense of truth and falsehood, etc, if you came from a mindless and uncaring universe? -------------------------- You might like to get interested in the evolution of sentiments... oh, but of course, you want people born with these things, like good little images of your god. But a scientifc study of the history of feelings and values on your part might stop the lack of logic in your thought. (And let's not talk about innate ethics, when an entire population can subjugate another, as was done in the American south with Black Americans.) [ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-24-2002, 11:00 AM	#2
GunnerJ Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: a place where i can list whatever location i want Posts: 4,871	A huge, embarrasing non-sequitir. I would have hoped that your post would have something to do with what you're replying to.

03-24-2002, 03:46 PM	#6
hinduwoman Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: India Posts: 6,977	Dan, if you are waiting for atheists to give you an Absolute impersonal source of moral values, you will wait forever. Our moral values come from the mental makeup of human beings, not from some outside agency.

03-24-2002, 07:31 PM	#7
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Danpech: -------------- Evolution of sentiments? -------------- Uh-huh. What's the problem? You have evolution of mathematical ideas, evolution of logic, evolution of language and thought, evolution of music, evolution of literature, etc., etc. Danpech: -------------- Does that include the sentiment of disgust over gross falsehoods and the gross selfishness-motivated oppressions that arise out of it? -------------- Yeah, sure, why not? Danpech: -------------- Where's the ethical approval of brute competition here? -------------- Isn't that what public games are a vestige of? Danpech: -------------- And, which falsehoods are we refering to, those based on theism only, or those based on atheism as well? If there is no God, then it just seems strange to me that the universe could evolve life forms which, by their very evolved nature, seem compelled against logic itself to believe in one. -------------- That's apparently because you haven't thought about it. First imagine the world without any scientific knowledge whatsoever, a world in which almost everything that happened had no reason or meaning, as one turned the light of exterior perception on brighter. Things happened by themselves and just as people had something that gave them life so did most other things. The world needs explanation. Animism was probably the earliest form of explanation: everything had a life or a "soul". Here we are on the road to evolution of your god incidentally. Some things had more strength or greatness than others. Why is it that some stars moved and others didn't? Obviously those which moved had great life. Why was there a connection between things that happened in the sky and things that happened on the earth? We are dealing with early attempts to understand the world. You can see that there is little justification in this sort of stuff, but you'll find it in the earliest traces of religions. Certain great forces had to be placated -- and there is an evolution of the ceremonies of placation. From these great forces we have the development of things that can best be described by us as gods. And from them an eventual monotheism. Monotheism seems to have hit Judaism through contact with the Persians. The important thing is that logic didn't have anything directly to do with the process. Logic wasn't available as it hadn't evolved at the time. We had to wait for people like Aristotle to codify simple logic such as syllogisms. Nevertheless, an explanation of the world has always been necessary to deal with the world. When you can't explain the world in any other way you explain it through the simple things you do know, giving entity status to other things. Gods seem natural to me as astrology, though both are unrelated to the real world. Danpech: -------------- I can't help it if I'm the product of evolution. I just don't see the atheist argument as having the supreme logic or the supreme valuation. Where did you get yours from, and should I trust it? -------------- The first steps in dealing with the world come from developing tools with which to analyse it and rules which govern the application of the tools. You also need to know that when there is not enough evidence to answer a question, it is best to leave the question unanswered, because any answer you will divine may easily be wrong. There are no hard and fast rules for living in this world other than that this world must be treated case for case. Today's answers might not be useful tomorrow. Society tends to help protect the individual from most sudden changes in the perceptual world. Should you trust my logic? Of course not. You need to develop a methodology of your own, in which you are capable of challenging everything before you (and I mean everything), if necessary, so that you can have some security of the value of things. No, I'm not saying that you have to question everything all the time, but that everything, must be able to withstand analysis and judgement, for, if it can't, it is not useful. Danpech: -------------- I can hardly trust those of most anybody no matter what they believe, so why should trust those of people who believe that we all evolved from lifeless cosmic junk? -------------- Don't trust them. Learn to analyse and learn to survive as an independent being -- well, semi-independent. Danpech to Kent Stevens: -------------- You pose us as mere products of God (whom you deny exists), yet you seem determined to believe that things only come from things which have what the products have. -------------- spin: -------------- Along with bubonic plague, terrorism, George Dubbaya, piranha, AIDS, anacondas, and other such lovely creations. -------------- Danpech: -------------- When you die, that's the end of you, so why should you care what the world is like, including that some people believe that there is a good and all-powerful Creator of the (initially good) conditions? -------------- I am a part of humankind, a part of the life on this world, a part of this world. If that is not sufficient reason, how is the belief of a god who created bubonic plague or earthquakes or starvation or stories about life after this one going to be more sufficient? Danpech: -------------- Of course, if I die and then that's the end of me, then, if theism gives me a social upper hand, what do I care if it is false? Why not join me? Love your friends and hate your enemies, I say. -------------- Why should you care about anything anyway when you believe in a god and you've got your meal ticket to heaven and this world is just a chrysalis stage anyway for the good guys, while the bad guys get hell as a result from failing the crash-dummy test? There is no reason to care because of a god. Love your enemies they say, but there was a great deal of love during the American civil war, wasn't there? Two god-fearing armies squared off against each other with the desire to kill the other. The important thing for many of those religionists who do "good" deeds in this world is to win souls for their god, not to do good things for the people. When the inquisitor tortured people it was for the sake of their souls, not their bodies. This world to the religionist is not worth worrying about. You, Danpech, have the choice, is it worth worrying about intrinsically and not because some god is supposed to have told you to worry? Danpech: -------------- And much of the above is one very big piece of logic in the form of a very thorough sarcasm over the whole debate. -------------- I don't think so. Danpech: -------------- I'm a simple guy, and I'd rather myself just leave it all and live in peace. As if there were someplace to go. But, what is this that does not allow us to live in peace? -------------- Money, power or religion. Danpech: -------------- How is it that people can honestly believe in things that are, in reality, simply not true, and they having the reasoning to actually believe that it is true (which is the party that lacks the bigger picture?)? What is their motive, really, for believing a falsehood, or is sheer ignorance the sum of the cause? If we all have a self-dishonest motive, so that it is easier to believe in a falsehood which seems true than in a higher truth which is true, did that motive evolve too? -------------- The major reason is to have a way to face the world. This is always needed. The struggle to survive also becomes a mental struggle as one becomes more aware through evolving perceptions. Explanations are explanations whether they are correct or they are not. People need explanations. You do, or you wouldn't be asking.

03-24-2002, 07:40 PM	#8
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Incidentally, Danpech, can you imagine the situation before science had developed a theory to explain where humans came from, when a theory was needed, that someone could have developed the idea of a god moulding man from earth or clay? It obviously didn't happen that way, but it made sense to people thousands of years ago and it gave a certain relationship between the people and the land. The Egyptian story about the god Khnum creating humans on a potter's wheel is not too different. Making people out of clay or out of earth. It didn't happen, but it explains how we got here. In Mesopotamia we got here by being moulded from the blood of Tiamat. Every culture had some sort of explanation about how we got here. Obviously an explanation was necessary. Appreciate the explanations for what they were, means to deal with a strange apparently hostile world.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.