Freethought & Rationalism Archive

luvluv · 06-21-2003, 05:20 PM

Quote:

The real world is pleanty interesting with out the addition of abstractions.

For you maybe. Is there any room in your world for people who think otherwise?

Myths can confer tradition, history, and morality. They can provide social cohesion, a sense of identity, and cultural richness.

Some people like those things, even when they know their myths can't be proven to be true. So explain to me, if you can, why everyone should have the type of wonderment YOU want them to have?

NZAmoeba · 06-21-2003, 06:14 PM

Atheists like stories too, we just don't go around persecuting anyone who doesn't accept myth as pure truth. We can learn lessons from stories without them having to be real.

And sides, the amazing things in life may be large chemical reactions, but that still doesn't stop them from being really pretty.

Family Man · 06-21-2003, 08:14 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by luvluv
Myths can confer tradition, history, and morality. They can provide social cohesion, a sense of identity, and cultural richness.

It can also provide social repression, a sense of superiority over those who don't share that particular identity, and cultural snobiness. Granted that some positive things can come from myths; but negative things can be spawned also, as shown by organizations such as the Nazi Party, the KKK, and the Christian Identity movement which have relied heavily on mythology to create a sense of identity, history, and immorality.

There is nothing inherently good about myths. And since they certainly distort reality, and almost certainly aren't true, I really wonder what good they are.

However, I can live with people living with harmless myths, as long as it is kept within reasonable limits (and the Christian myth frequently isn't). Aggressive rationality without restraint can often be just as harmful as aggressive myth-making, so us rationalists shouldn't get our knickers in big bunch either.

Gamer4Fire · 06-22-2003, 03:09 AM

It double posted?!? Sorry.

Gamer4Fire · 06-22-2003, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
There you go again, using meaningless expressions like "grown in my understanding," we can do better."

Growth is measured against some standard. In a non-theistic world, there is no standard for knowledge; the honest atheist will admit that his best "knowledge" is mere speculation and, therefore, meaningless.

Growth is a measurement of a reference point, "You've gotten a lot bigger since I last saw you." An idiot would be a standard of knowlege (in it's classical sense, an illiterate). Someone with a highschool diploma would be percieved as having a standard of knowlege (probably an idiot, who can't do algebra or figure out why his mac and cheese always burns.) Someone with a masters or doctorate in any specific field would have a standard of knowlege, in other words, you could use them as a reference point of someone else's knowlege.

I am sure that many here are more knowlegeable of theology than I, which is what makes coming here enjoyable, I can learn. In that, I increase my knowlege from a standard of: me not knowing something, then, after I read a topic or two: me knowing something. All growth can be determined from a reference point. I do not need to be a theist to generate a reference point.

In the same way, "do better" implies comparison which also requires a standard. Since, in a materialist world there can be no knowledge, there can be no knowledge of what is good, better, best, etc. There is merely existence about which you can make no authoritaive declarations.

I am confused, I thought the materialist believed in only the material world, without a spiritual world. As in, there is only matter, your brain goes through chemical reactions, shoots off some sparks and you have a reaction (love or hunger or boredom), there is no mind/soul incorporeal that dictates our actions. Which would make all knowlege extremely important as to understanding the world and being able to better utilize it for our needs. In which case anything could be concieved as better than, worse than from a reference point. I am no longer bleeding, therefore I am in better condition than I was when I was bleeding. I am hungry, I am in worse form than if I ate.

So, congratulations on your escape from God.

I do not understand how materialism escapes god.

Does the awe thing have anything to do with that test with the Buddhist monks and Franciscan nuns? Where they were both monitored as they prayed, the monks found nirvana and the nuns found god?

ComestibleVenom · 06-22-2003, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv
So explain to me, if you can, why everyone should have the type of wonderment YOU want them to have?

Because I believe that humans have a responsibility to reality. This is a matter of moral obligations, escapism is a dangerously unacceptable large-scale way for humans to deal with their problems.

It is we who must change to fit nature. We cannot pretend that nature is fitted about us.

dspeers · 06-25-2003, 04:22 PM

I was raised by an overtly atheistic father and an ambiguously religous mother (by which I mean, she didn't actively participate in any specific denomination, but expressed a belief in God).

While religion was not a part of our normal, everyday conversation, I was aware at a pretty young age (say, 1st grade) of the concept of "God," and of each of my parents' respective positions. This awareness came from my interaction with other kids, and most significantly, in a school where prayer was mandatory before lunch (where I was humiliated daily by being forced to wait outside in the hallway while other kids prayed, like I was waiting to be taken to the principal's office). :banghead:

Now, to the question of "innateness." I have never in my life, upon gazing at the wonders of the universe, had a reaction like, "wow, there must be a god." That doesn't mean that I had a ready, scientific answer for everything I saw, but as I became old enough to understand such concepts, I realized that there is a scientific explanation, even if it hasn't been discovered yet.

And now the shoe is on the other foot. I am overtly atheistic (meaning I do not have a belief in god, and I'm not afraid to talk about it), and my wife is religious (though she may subscribe to the beliefs of a specific denomination, she does not actively attend Church). I have a 9-year-old son. My wife was exposing him to religion, and even had him baptised (I came along for the ceremony, it was a curious exercise). This was when he was younger. But now, my son is apparently considering and rejecting the existence of God, just as he considered and rejected the existence of Santa Clause. I couldn't be prouder.

Family Man · 06-25-2003, 09:27 PM

I'm wondering if theists actually have a argument for the innateness of god-belief. If so, I'd like to see it.

Vylo · 06-26-2003, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Not affirming God is denying him.

incorrect. I do not affirm the existence of pink unicorns outside my window, nor do I deny it. I do not bother with the concept. Similarly, to a "negative" atheist, the notion of God is so ridiculous they barely stop to consider it.

I being a "positive" athiest deny god and its existence. Denying god does not mean he exists. Someone can say there is a gigantic green frog outside my window and I can deny that, but that does not suddenly create a gigantic green frog. Can either of us prove that there is or isnt? Assuming we trust our senses, we can go outisde and look, seeing proof of one way or the other. If we define god as an omniscient, omnipresent being, such a being would exist outside our reality and we could never percieve it, there is no way to prove whether or not such a being exists so in that way it does become a ridiculous statement. However if we define god as not omnipotent etc., and just a powerful being which created our universe and still resides within, we should be able to see evidence of such a being. Since we do not see any credible evidence of something like that existing, we can deny the fact it exists.

streamline · 06-27-2003, 07:29 PM

per luvluv:

"I don't know about you, but I don't need to be told to be awed when I see a beautiful sunrise, or a waterfall, or the birth of a baby, etc.

I think that what is learned is seeing these things in cold, scientific, logical terms. Most people will react emotionally, with awe and wonder, until they are trained to see in these events nothing but the interactions of particles."

Quite a few people, while also (actually -- BECAUSE OF) reacting with awe and wonder, will almost simultaneously wish to understand how such awe-inspiring events came to pass, or what makes such a wonderous thing tick. You do a great dis(s)service to the awe and wonder that fuels scientists and those who enjoy thinking scientifically. Who "trained" the first scientist, so to speak? Who corralled his/her emotional reactions to stimuli and "trained" him/her to see such things as "nothing but the interactions of particles"? Or is it just possible that the -- dare I say, condescending -- dichotomy that you paint between the good-golly-wow-emotive awe & wonder crowd and those "cold" scientists is a false one?

Furthermore, as for what I sense to be a lurking argument bred of such false dichotomies, eg, the religiously-minded folk are simply more open to truly experiencing reality in it's wonderous totality, or some other such self-serving bunk, while us atheists are either repressively-minded self-haters or impotent when it comes to feelings of humility and awe...

Besides, there is a flipside to this argument, for all the theists who might wish to employ it. I don't know about you, luvluv, but I don't need to be told to be horrified and deeply troubled when I hear of accounts of mass casualties from a violent earthquake, or a serial killer, or a deadly disease, etc.

I think that what is learned is seeing these things in self-aggrandizing, "divine", theistic terms. Most people will react as if this life is all there is to be lived or lost, with sadness and focus, until they are deluded into seeing these events as the loving plan of some deity looking out for their best interests.

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

06-21-2003, 06:14 PM	#42
NZAmoeba Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: New Zealand Posts: 478	Atheists like stories too, we just don't go around persecuting anyone who doesn't accept myth as pure truth. We can learn lessons from stories without them having to be real. And sides, the amazing things in life may be large chemical reactions, but that still doesn't stop them from being really pretty.

06-21-2003, 08:14 PM	#43
Family Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Superior, CO USA Posts: 1,553	[QUOTE]Originally posted by luvluv Myths can confer tradition, history, and morality. They can provide social cohesion, a sense of identity, and cultural richness. It can also provide social repression, a sense of superiority over those who don't share that particular identity, and cultural snobiness. Granted that some positive things can come from myths; but negative things can be spawned also, as shown by organizations such as the Nazi Party, the KKK, and the Christian Identity movement which have relied heavily on mythology to create a sense of identity, history, and immorality. There is nothing inherently good about myths. And since they certainly distort reality, and almost certainly aren't true, I really wonder what good they are. However, I can live with people living with harmless myths, as long as it is kept within reasonable limits (and the Christian myth frequently isn't). Aggressive rationality without restraint can often be just as harmful as aggressive myth-making, so us rationalists shouldn't get our knickers in big bunch either.

06-22-2003, 03:09 AM	#44
Gamer4Fire Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: NAS Atlanta Posts: 2,104	It double posted?!? Sorry.

06-25-2003, 04:22 PM	#47
dspeers Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 89	I was raised by an overtly atheistic father and an ambiguously religous mother (by which I mean, she didn't actively participate in any specific denomination, but expressed a belief in God). While religion was not a part of our normal, everyday conversation, I was aware at a pretty young age (say, 1st grade) of the concept of "God," and of each of my parents' respective positions. This awareness came from my interaction with other kids, and most significantly, in a school where prayer was mandatory before lunch (where I was humiliated daily by being forced to wait outside in the hallway while other kids prayed, like I was waiting to be taken to the principal's office). :banghead: Now, to the question of "innateness." I have never in my life, upon gazing at the wonders of the universe, had a reaction like, "wow, there must be a god." That doesn't mean that I had a ready, scientific answer for everything I saw, but as I became old enough to understand such concepts, I realized that there is a scientific explanation, even if it hasn't been discovered yet. And now the shoe is on the other foot. I am overtly atheistic (meaning I do not have a belief in god, and I'm not afraid to talk about it), and my wife is religious (though she may subscribe to the beliefs of a specific denomination, she does not actively attend Church). I have a 9-year-old son. My wife was exposing him to religion, and even had him baptised (I came along for the ceremony, it was a curious exercise). This was when he was younger. But now, my son is apparently considering and rejecting the existence of God, just as he considered and rejected the existence of Santa Clause. I couldn't be prouder.

06-25-2003, 09:27 PM	#48
Family Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Superior, CO USA Posts: 1,553	I'm wondering if theists actually have a argument for the innateness of god-belief. If so, I'd like to see it.

06-27-2003, 07:29 PM	#50
streamline Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 77	per luvluv: "I don't know about you, but I don't need to be told to be awed when I see a beautiful sunrise, or a waterfall, or the birth of a baby, etc. I think that what is learned is seeing these things in cold, scientific, logical terms. Most people will react emotionally, with awe and wonder, until they are trained to see in these events nothing but the interactions of particles." Quite a few people, while also (actually -- BECAUSE OF) reacting with awe and wonder, will almost simultaneously wish to understand how such awe-inspiring events came to pass, or what makes such a wonderous thing tick. You do a great dis(s)service to the awe and wonder that fuels scientists and those who enjoy thinking scientifically. Who "trained" the first scientist, so to speak? Who corralled his/her emotional reactions to stimuli and "trained" him/her to see such things as "nothing but the interactions of particles"? Or is it just possible that the -- dare I say, condescending -- dichotomy that you paint between the good-golly-wow-emotive awe & wonder crowd and those "cold" scientists is a false one? Furthermore, as for what I sense to be a lurking argument bred of such false dichotomies, eg, the religiously-minded folk are simply more open to truly experiencing reality in it's wonderous totality, or some other such self-serving bunk, while us atheists are either repressively-minded self-haters or impotent when it comes to feelings of humility and awe... Besides, there is a flipside to this argument, for all the theists who might wish to employ it. I don't know about you, luvluv, but I don't need to be told to be horrified and deeply troubled when I hear of accounts of mass casualties from a violent earthquake, or a serial killer, or a deadly disease, etc. I think that what is learned is seeing these things in self-aggrandizing, "divine", theistic terms. Most people will react as if this life is all there is to be lived or lost, with sadness and focus, until they are deluded into seeing these events as the loving plan of some deity looking out for their best interests.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.