Philosoft

Yeah, never mind who's providing all those 'scientifical advancements.'

<strong> Ah, yes. In the absence of a counter-argument, simply pretend like there really isn't an argument to begin with.

<strong> Of course, one would need to clarify just what the hell one is talking about.

[ May 24, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

The AntiChris

G B Mayes

Whilst I agree that superstitious beliefs continue to prevail, we are not, unfortunately, living in the rational world envisaged by free12thinker in his OP.

Are you seriously suggesting that "the wind", like your god, is merely an imagined mental concept?

Chris

HRG

And your extraordinary evidence for this extraordinary claim is exactly what ?
Sorry, but if I read this crap argument another time, I'll probably vomit.

"Wind" is a process: the motion of air molecules. Their average speed and direction can be measured with an anemometer. Everyone reading the instrument will get the same result, whether he is Hindu, Christian, Shintoist or atheist.

The contrast to the God concept of theists should be obvious.

HRG.

Jayhawker Soule

Well, since it seems that way to you, I guess that the rest of us have little to do but sit back in wonder.


I'll leave it to others to list all the other "obvious" crap people believe in. As for the less obvious ...

And, when you offer "a purely intellectual standpoint", I'm confident that it will get all of the attention it deserves.

AJ113

Thanks for the input, people, I need to quit the thread because of other imminent commitments, see you soon.

Typhon

Really? So answer the following questions for me then:

1. Is Anu the god of heaven?

2. Should Sobek still be appeased and worshiped at Kom Ombo?

3. How many burnt offering should be made to Apollo at Delphi this year?

4. Will Mithras protect soldiers fighting in Afghanistan?

5. Why has Lugh not previously intervened in the conflict in Northern Ireland?

6. Who will prevail in the conflict between India and Pakistan, Siva or Vishnu or Allah?

7. What is Odin up to these days, and should we worry about Fimbulwinter?

Oh, and there ARE! More than in the past. One might even suspect that secular societies might be seen in the world, if this was true. Oh wait, there ARE more secular societies now, imagine that.

They fit well within the typical scope of human behavior. We're not unique in this regard at all, just talented. Chimps wage war on each other and commit rape. Baboons murder and engage in infanticide. Ants of one colony make slaves of their neighbors in the wake of daring raids.

The entire world is and always has been, red in tooth and claw, and we are but perhaps, the most skilled of many butchers.

Name an atrocity BTW. Explain to me first, the political and historic roots of the conflict. Did anyone gain something from the event, or was it purely indented as a "mad" expression of cruelty? Has anything happened like this, but on a larger or smaller scale?

The atrocities of world history fit in just fine with morality being the product of a human society, just as religion is a similar product. In fact, it's one of the reasons such crimes as I suspect you are banding about, are seen as "atrocities" in the first place, rather than simply average conflicts, BECAUSE they likely are viewed as being very detrimental to the society of man, and hence, our collective survival.

Do we laude these people (those who we recognize as having committed an "atrocity") or do we punish or seek to punish, those who commit such acts?

Not I. Most likely the loosely described behavior you report is very typical of human society. We are concerned with our allies and kin groups, which are for most of our existence, the primary building blocks of our social groups. Society "in general" IS just such a loose amalgamation of smaller groups and individuals. One does not need to have a "real regard for society in general" to still be constrained and even a part of that general consensus that affects and constrains our day to day lives.

1. Do these people live outside of any larger societies?

2. Do they (by force or by choice) obey any of the rules and dictates of their societies?

3. Do they themselves consider themselves to be members of any larger society (such as Americans, Londoners, Texans, Christians, etc.)?

4. Do you hold that such behavior is never socially or temporally advantageous to the individual who displays it?

Many people seek to and are rewarded for, anti-social behavior. There are all sorts of advantages to be gained, be such they reproductive, resource, control, or many other important aspects of both individual comfort and survival and society as a whole. It has been shown that those baboons in a troop who have the highest social ranking (which is almost always passed on to their offspring) enjoy the best lives, are typically the healthiest members, and in general suffer less stress and stand a better chance of survival. Those at the top of the social ladder often act brutally to those under them, as well as enjoy the most privileges, and yet, as the entire group is interdependent upon one another, there are checks and balances. "Bad" behavior sometimes pays off, other times it can be the doom of the perpetrator, and there is always a balance of risk vs. reward. Even a high status individual can not afford to alienate the rest of the group, or damage it, without risking the wrath of the group or even its weakening. There are always other social groups in competition, so a weak group is frequently preyed upon by a stronger, more healthy one.

It is easy to retreat from difficult questions with quips that contain little of substance.

Really, do tell. You are not aware of what morals are, if as by your original statement, you assume that they disappear like soap bubbles should you for some reason denounce your silly religious beliefs. I argued, within the context of a much longer section of text, that you were wrong. You have yet to rebut any of my arguments on this topic.

Your statement (correct if wrong) seems to boil down to a typical theist argument for only your god being the source of morality.

The fact of the world is, many, many, many millions of other humans do not believe in your god and yet follow and practice morality.

Also, we can see from direct and repeatable study of the natural world, as well as from our own history, that morals closely follow and are interdependent upon the societies that birth them.

Members of the same society, but different faiths, even often share the same morals, not surprisingly. We are also able to trace back many types of behavior to the dynamics involved in being a social animal, like ourselves.

Therefore, to claim that without your faith in your particular personal myth, you are unrestrained by conventional morality or even bereft of it, is I would charge, false.

Well, that's not something from your Christian myths at least, must be a product of your society creeping in. What in earth is this nonsense supposed to mean? Have you now switched to writing slogans for fortune cookies? LOL.

Actually, this does parallel a very common problem with being at the top of a social hierarchy, you always have a lot of competition from below, and for example in the case of baboons, should a reigning alpha male survive his inevitable overthrow by one of his rivals, he is liable to fall to the lowest ranks of the troop, beaten up by all those who once were themselves subject to his tyranny. Frequently, the defeated male either leaves the troop for another, where he is not known, or soon perishes.

There can be a number of people who do not care about the health and stability of society extant at any one time. That matters little to the point I made. As we are dependent on the health and stability of our societies to safeguard our own, we on average, will suffer when they are not maintained. Most people who refuse completely to take part in their society, are barred from it, killed, disenfranchised, persecuted, jailed, or any other number of punishments and/or corrective acts.

Besides, I still challenge you to prove that you don't care at all about your personal survival. You would have never survived long enough to learn a language if you did not follow your own desire to survive, and I might add, be a part of the society you were born a part of. Even your nerves betray you. I would guess that you do not typically place your hand in a fire, until your skin falls off. You do not normally leap into the jaws of lions or fail to move out of the way of an approaching truck. You eat food, you sleep, you do not live in a shack in the woods, building pipe bombs and killing your fellow human beings. You likely have friends, relations, and possibly dependents who enmesh your in a rich, complex web of human interactions and social responsibilities, some desired, other burdensome.

Members of our species or near species, who in the past who for whatever reason, failed to display survival tendencies and were unable to function as a part of their social group, did not as a rule, survive. It's called extinction, and it's happened to better sorts than our own in the past.

You have missed the salient point raised here, or willfully ignored it. It does not matter one whit, whether YOU care about "survival of the species." Your ancestors did, and hence you in the first place. It is not even necessary that you, one individual out of a species, care, provided enough do. Enough do, as demonstrated by the six billion plus members of our species and growing.

Furthermore, I would challenge some of your blithe statements above.

1. Are you or have you ever been interested/attracted to/or desirous of sex? Do you or have you ever experienced sexual attraction or responses to other members of your species?

2. Do you or have you ever avoided personal harm, especially potentially deadly harm to your person?

3. What is your stance on marriage? Do you think it is a "good" thing, and have you ever thought about getting married, even if you don't think doing so right now, is the best choice.

4. Should people have children, and why? Do you plan to have children? More importantly, have you taken steps to ensure you never have children at all?

.T.

Ojuice5001

Hey Typhon, those seven questions you asked at the beginning of your most recent post? Not a good reductio ad absurdum, because those are good questions. For instance, Vishnu and Allah are squaring off in India, and Sobek would like people to sacrifice to him. (But in modern Egypt, it ain't gonna happen.) They reflect the actual relations of gods, not an absurd view of the world.

Now as for the answers to those questions, I don't know. I'm not a god.

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: Rhinoceros ]</p>