Buffman

Kent Symanzik

Thank you for the responses.

Simply because God said so. He is my ultimate authority. He says in I Peter and 2 Timothy that the scriptures are God-breathed. The men who wrote them were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Hmmmmm? It appears that we will be unable to pursue this discussion in any meaningful manner if you insist that the book of writings labeled the Holy Bible is without error. That is why I asked you just how much effort you had expended in confirming its so-called divinity. As long as you are convinced that the letters (epistles) of Paul were directed by some supernatural entity beyond your comprehension, there is no basis from which to proceed. I am even hesitant to ask you why these epistles appear in the Bible according to length rather than chronology...which can only be determined by hints and inferences within each epistle. Obviously you are not prepared to discuss the how's and why's some mortal men, many centuries later, determined which writings were or were not divinely inspired. You simply accept, on faith, that they knew better than you are capable of knowing. My problem just starts warming up when I wonder "from whence cometh" the Holy Bible of your faith beliefs?

<a href="http://www-sul.stanford.edu/depts/ssrg/misc/bible.html" target="_blank">http://www-sul.stanford.edu/depts/ssrg/misc/bible.html</a>

Then I looked at the following and new questions immediately arose.

<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A307487" target="_blank">http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A307487</a>

<a href="http://www.innvista.com/scriptures/pseudep/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.innvista.com/scriptures/pseudep/default.htm</a>

The "Big Question." Who determined which scriptural writings were divinely inspired? What you appear to be doing is "post hoc ergo propter hoc" ("After this, therefore because of this"). I believe that is called fallacious reasoning.

<a href="http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/posthoc.html" target="_blank">http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/posthoc.html</a>

First, I don't think I said that every other worldview results in absurdities but rather every one that I know of. Second, the scriptures that we have are what the church has recognized as being God's word to us. Could the church be wrong? Certainly (At least according to protestants). But, in my worldview, that is not a problem because God is in control of all things including what we consider to be the scriptures. I have no reason to question whether he was able to deliver them to us.

Understood! Not "all" faith beliefs are absurd other than your own, only those about which you have any knowledge are absurd. Care to mention which ones you include in your knowledge?---Yes! Exactly! You have a faith belief in what your Church tells you is correct/true/right/moral. So according to your Church, Protestants would fall outside that category even though they are worshipping the identical writings that you do. Hmmmmm? Interesting. Confusing, but interesting. Can I assume that if your Church were to tell you that Protestants are wrong, then you would believe that they are wrong...regardless of what your Bible might say?--- The instant you say that you have "no reason to question" don't you give up your Free Will and become little more than a slave to a Church's religious dogma rather than a true believer in the existence of a monotheistic supernatural god? Aren't you indicating that you fear to examine the evidence available lest it might cause you to ask other, more insightful, questions? What do you fear? The potential loss of eternal salvation? Your so-called "soul?" Satan? Yourself? Everyone else? (Please help me out here! Aren't you at all interested in determining, as best you are able, what is fact and what is fiction? That's why I asked you how you would determine right from wrong without having to recede deeper into the cave of blind faith belief dogma...which, naturally, IMHO, is not the most rational approach to obtaining more accurate knowledge and understanding.)

I would not restrict conscience or sense of morality to our physical being. I am not a materialist. I believe we are physical and that we have a soul.

Please define what you mean by "soul." Could you possibly mean "those things that you can not presently explain or understand?"

This sounds more like how an atheist may attempt to justify moral standards. I certainly do not hold to this. If you are proposing this as a possibility then I would ask what makes survival good or right and what makes non-survival wrong? If we are ultimately chance combinations of matter then life compared to non-life are simply changes in state. There is nothing that ultimately gives either state more value over the other.

Lacking the ability to reason on the level of self-awareness, I would probably have to agree with you. Life is no more than Energy transformed within the available environment to sustain it in the form that it represents. However, it would seem that you would have to imbue every living thing with a "soul" because of their supernatural origins. To do otherwise would also be rather arrogant by inferring that one knew the mind and plan of their supernatural entity. However, since humans have evolved a modicum of self-awareness, of which Curiosity is an integral agent, I find it difficult to understand why so many humans are willing to believe whatever they are told rather than confirming the information by utilizing the only thing that makes them unique in the living world...their ability to reason critically in order to arrive at the most accurate answers available at any given time. Naturally, these answers may well prove to be in error at some future date...but that proof will also stem from the critically reasoned assessment of newer verifiable evidence...not a faith belief.

Unfortunately I believe that our dialogue is at an end because I am unwilling to accept your positions based merely on your Church conditioned faith beliefs. IMHO, organized religions/Churches are little more than Eternal Life Insurance Companies selling worthless policies to the gullible.

PS: If you don't understand the right/good and wrong/bad between life (survival) and death (non-survival), I fear that your set of moral values...regardless of their origin...are sadly in want of common sense let alone some critically reasoned justification. However, thank you for making me feel much more secure in my own ethical/moral precepts.

tronvillain

Kent Symanzik:
Nonsense. I am an atheist and have a perfectly reasonable foundation for my morality: emotion. It is a fact that I experience various emotions, such as fear, jealousy, desire, anger, pity, and empathy, and in combination with reason and experience they produce my moral system. Why do I not kill random people? Well, I have no motivation to do so (such as desire, anger, fear, or jealousy), I fear the consequences of being caught, and I feel empathy for other human beings.

Ah, now this is an attempt at a lower level explanation - why we have the moral tendencies that we have. In comparison to the explanation offered by evolutionary theory, it is an extremely poor one.

[

How is "one's best interest" defined? It is simply the outcome favoured by weighing one's various motivations. If I find a wallet on the street, what action will be in my best interest? I weigh my desire for money against empathy for the owners loss, potential guilt about keeping the money, and fear of discovery and so on. Now, it may turn out that the decision I made wasn't in my best interest, but we do the best we can with the information and reasoning ability we have.

Now, is what one wants "good"? Well, it is what one wants, and from the individual perspective is it difficult to see how that would be anything but good, unless there is a conflicting want of equal or greater magnitude. Of course, other people may want something else, and will label what you want "bad." Now, is whatever causes the survival of the human race "good"? Well, it depends on whether or not you want the human race to survive and how much you want it relative to other things.

Ah, well I do not claim that morality is objective. It is a matter of taste, though as in taste, there are some relatively universal constants as a result of our specific mental and physical architecture. We may just be bags of chemicals fizzing (fissing would have been clever if you hadn't used it to descrive Coke and Pepsi as well), but that does not prevent us from having morals and values. From an ultimate perspective there is no value and no morality, but frankly, who cares about the ultimate perspective? I see the world from my perspective, and I value some things more than others because I am the way that I am.

Kent Symanzik

Hi Buffman,

Are you discarding supernaturalism at the outset? Why don't you show how my worldview is irrational or inconsistent? Remember, we all must start our reasoning somewhere. This is where I start and it cannot be logically discarded with a simple wave of the hand.

I don't understand what you are getting at here.

Here again you are presupposing from the outset that God does not exist in order to direct the process of putting together the bible. This will only be interesting if you laid down your criticism for discussion.

Rather than just referring me to various web pages please make your case and I will be happy to respond.

I don't think I was clear enough in my previous post. I am a protestant so I do not hold that the church is infallible. Sorry if that misunderstanding got you all worked up for nothing.

No, simply that the bible refers to man as being a soul as well as a body.

I understand that you find it difficult to understand why I would not assume my own autonomy rather than rely on the authority of my Christian God. But you have not shown how it is irrational, inconsistent, or incoherent.

Just as I presuppose that the Christian God of the scriptures exists and begin my reasoning there you presuppose that he does not exist and that you can be rational without him. The laws of logic make sense in my worldview because they reflect the thinking of my creator. My God is logical and expects me think like he does. Since logic is part of his very nature, logic is universal and invariant.

How does your atheistic worldview provide a foundation for the laws of logic. Are they universal? Contingent? Just conventions? What are they? I know that you use the laws of logic but I have not yet seen how you can justify doing so.

If you still think our dialogue is not worth continuing I understand and thank you for the dialogue we had.

Maybe you misunderstood me. In my worldview, survival is certainly right and good. What I do not understand is how you determine good from evil as an atheist. If you consider survival good then I must ask how you, as an atheist, can consider it good. If we are just energy transformed then death is simply another transformation. What makes it bad? How can you make value judgements about state changes?

Kent

Kent Symanzik

Hi tronvillain,

I snipped until the bottom of your post because I realized that you were talking about relative morals. Whenever I have been considering standards of morality I have meant objective, universal standards. Relative morality is irrational if it is used to impose ought universally. I should have been more clear.

When you speak of morals you seem to mean simply a personal moral code that you do not expect anyone else to adhere to. Is that correct?

If so, that would be helpful in deciding how you might want to act but you would not be able to judge anyone else's actions as good or evil. So, I hope you can see the limitations of your moral code. It will not help you condemn any action no matter how heinous.

You say that you do not care about the ultimate perspective but have you considered how you would live if the world really worked that way? You benefit because there are those that do care about the ultimate perspective.

Kent

Autonemesis

Sure they do. If I injure myself, it hurts. I look at you and see another of my species. It is not hard to realize that you would also feel pain if injured. Empathy, experience and reason provide a rational basis for morality. I refer to it as ethics, however, to distinguish it from "revealed" morality, which to my mind is no morality at all.

Even as you try to defend your position, you undermine it. Whatever people believe is the source of moral standards, people are the ones who declare what they are (or "what they understand them to be"). So how can there be any difference between applying our imperfect understanding of God's moral standard, and simply doing our best to treat each other well and to try to orient society to foster peaceful advancement of our conditions of existence? Put another way, how do you know that this or that change in our outlook on God's moral code is bringing us closer to, or further away from God's intent? If you have an answer for that question, how is it that we cannot simply take that and use it along with our empathy, experience and reason to answer moral questions just as satisfactorily?

Am I really to believe that you can't reach inside yourself and think of an answer to that question all by yourself, without referring to something outside yourself? I can. Other infidels on this board can. Can you?

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>

Buffman

Kent,

Since you were kind enough to respond again, I feel I must do likewise rather than allow some of your errors to stand unchallenged. I do so, not so much for you, as I do for those who may find themselves following our dialogue and having questions of their own unanswered.


This is where I start and it cannot be logically discarded with a simple wave of the hand.

Oh my! You are quite in error with that belief. There was a time when alchemists sincerely believed that they could turn lead into gold. Even today, there are those who sincerely believe that verbal incantations or "magikal" symbols will produce changes in the physical world. With a simple shrug of my shoulders, I leave these primitives to their own machinations. Why? Simple! They are unwilling or unable to learn what is required to lead their minds and bodies into the enlightened world.

I don't understand what you are getting at here.

Not at all surprising!

Here again you are presupposing from the outset that God does not exist in order to direct the process of putting together the bible. This will only be interesting if you laid down your criticism for discussion.

After over six decades of finding not the slightest evidence of a supernatural god or verifiable miracle, I guess I will just have to repeat my request. You are the one presupposing a supernatural God. Please present your testable evidence for such a claim. If you have none, then I will have to conclude that my presupposition is more likely accurate than your own because you base your beliefs of faith alone. It isn't simply your absence of evidence "isn't" evidence of absence supposition that carries any weight in my worldview. It is my absence of evidence "is" evidence of absence that currently, and for more than 2,000 years, that has carried the day. Additionally, as the scientific method of inquiry rolls back the frontiers of superstition and myth, those who cling to the ancient beliefs are becoming increasingly desperate and shrill in their support of a worldview constructed on a 2,000 year plus old foundation of the fear of the unknown and death. The only way they known to manage their fears is to believe that they can live forever. The CEO's of the religious sales businesses have built a very lucrative industry on this genetic reality. However, as you previously admitted, you have not had the opportunity to delve into the bio-chemo-electro mechanisms of the human mind to the degree that it would aid you to understand many of your current unknowns and conditioned fears. That is why I avoided going into a biological explanation and attempted to use your own paraphernalia and rituals to help bring some enlightenment into the shadowy cave of superstition and fear.

Rather than just referring me to various web pages please make your case and I will be happy to respond.

Are you even too afraid to read any of the URLs I have referenced? I am not posting to you to win or lose some sort of immature and childish contest of wits. I responded to your obvious lack of knowledge about the very subject in which you claim to believe. If you are unwilling to learn, then I have wasted our time and apologize for having done so.

Sorry if that misunderstanding got you all worked up for nothing.

Short of a loaded and cocked .357 mm handgun stuck in my mouth, I seldom get worked up over someone's electronic words beyond a simple desire to educate them with the most accurate facts I can find. Obviously you aren't here to learn anything new because you think you know all the answers already. That's why I have twice called your attention to a certain level of arrogance in your posts.

But you have not shown how it is irrational, inconsistent, or incoherent.

How could you possibly know what is irrational, inconsistent and incoherent if you think that you already have all the answers you desire or need? I don't have all the answers. I don't know a great many things. However, I am willing to learn from those that do have the knowledge that I seek. Too bad you don't subscribe to a similar philosophy (worldview).

The laws of logic make sense in my worldview because they reflect the thinking of my creator. My God is logical and expects me think like he does. Since logic is part of his very nature, logic is universal and invariant.

Please don't attempt to discuss logic until you know what it is and how to assure that it is valid.

How does your atheistic worldview provide a foundation for the laws of logic.

First, aren't you once again assuming something that is not in evidence? Where did I claim that I was an atheist? My studied position is that labels are not positive or productive. They are a common attempt to polarize a discussion and be used to create false understandings.

Maybe you misunderstood me. In my worldview, survival is certainly right and good.

Perhaps I did misunderstand...though based on your previous thoughts that would appear unlikely.

What I do not understand is how you determine good from evil as an atheist.

I can not speak for anyone other than myself. I do not define "evil" in the manner that you appear to define it. I simply view something as right-good or wrong-bad. I do not subscribe to any "born in sin" religious theory. I do not live my life based on a carrot or stick philosophy. I base much on a simple expansion of the "Golden Rule" into my personal integrity and social relationships. I do what I can to improve my standards and those of society. Sometimes I'm successful and sometimes not. I accept full responsibility for my beliefs and actions...regardless of whether they might be classified by others as right or wrong. Above everything is my desire to learn. I do so by obtaining the most accurate knowledge currently available in the areas of my personal interests and undertakings.

If you consider survival good then I must ask how you, as an atheist, can consider it good.

Like I pointed out to you above, labels are not positive or productive. You have allowed this one to cloud your reason. What has atheism got to do with being a sentient being? A biological organism? A member of the Primates? (I really don't think that this is the question you truly meant to ask.)

If we are just energy transformed then death is simply another transformation.

Correct!

What makes it bad?

The demise of self-awareness!

How can you make value judgements about state changes?

Because every human being makes value judgements every second of their existence in this sentient form...whether they are aware of that fact or not. That's one of the things that make us sentient. Therefore, I can make all kinds of value judgements about "state changes." However, I attempt not to do so unless I have verifiable evidence to support my allegations/inferences/beliefs/conclusions/etc. If I do not have that evidence, I readily admit it and qualify my remarks...most of the time. (I can blow it just like anyone else if I don't apply a rigorous critical analysis to the subject under discussion. That's why I have found the Web to be a wondrous opportunity to learn, study and expand my knowledge base. How unfortunate that you do not find it useful in your worldview.

Vorkosigan

"How does your atheistic worldview provide a foundation for the laws of logic?"

Hi Kent! We get this question quite a lot. It is erroneous in its conception -- atheism is not a worldview and provides no foundation for logic; it is merely the lack of belief in gods. Reasons for logic and morality must be developed from some other foundation than atheism.

If you really mean to say, how is there logic without god, that one is very easy. If you really want an answer you should explore the science of Evolutionary Psychology. This <a href="http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html" target="_blank">Primer on Ev Psych</a> should get you started. Read it with an open mind; the discussion of how logic evolved and what it is for starts some way in.

Are they universal? Contingent? Just conventions? What are they? I know that you use the laws of logic but I have not yet seen how you can justify doing so.

Logic, like all tools, is justified by its success in producing reliable and useful knowledge, at least to me. In other words, logic is justified by a set of values held by its user.

Welcome to the board! There are answers to all your questions. Life without god is not only possible, but fruitful, loving and full of hope for humanity and its potential.

Vorkosigan

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Kent Symanzik

What makes the demise of self-awareness bad?

If we are just bags of energy that undergo state changes how can one state be more valuable than another? Values do not make sense in an impersonal universe. Even the term "value" does not have meaning without persons. Value is something that we as persons impose on things. How does something that is impersonal impose value? Or do you hold that we are persons even though we had an impersonal beginning?

Kent

tronvillain

Kent Symanzik:

Well, I don't expect anyone to adhere to my specific personal moral code, but I do expect them to behave in accordance with some of it; otherwise, I shall be upset.

I am perfectly able to judge the actions of others as "good" or "evil." When someone does something I dislike enough to be willing to attempt to stop them, I call that "evil." When someone attempts commits murder it is analagous to attempting to feed me rotten meat - it is a matter of taste, but I will stop them if I can.

Yes, I have considered how I would live if the world really worked that way, since the world really does work that way. Some people simply like to pretend that their perspective is the ultimate perspective - it's quite sad really.

Buffman

Kent

What makes the demise of self-awareness bad?

KENT: In my worldview, survival is certainly right and good.

Haven't you answered your own question? Of course if one believes that self-awareness continues after death, then they tend to crash airplanes into buildings without fear of demise because their supernatural, monotheistic, God is waiting to reward them (the "I-ME") for their (the MY-OUR) ultimate act of devotion and worship. Do they love their God more than you love yours?

Or is their faith in a supernatural, monotheistic, God one of those absurd ones about which you alluded to earlier. (Over one billion humans worship that god. Are they all absurd?)