A Question to the Athiests

[anarchir]

By the way Diogenes The Cynic, are you unable to be skeptical or cynical about your jerkish-pessimistic religion?

Clearly he cannot.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

By the way Diogenes The Cynic, are you unable to be skeptical or cynical about your jerkish-pessimistic religion?

Everyone is naturally biased about the personal beliefs they have, but as much as I am able to be, I do take a critical view of my own religion.

[fatcat]

You're entitled to be wrong.

great reply, idiot.

[Cognitive Dissident]

You're entitled to be wrong.

great reply, idiot.

Your response was so long-winded and out in left-field, I'm happy just to let you be wrong and not wig out and call you an idiot.

[The ghost of a ghost of a ghost]

You're entitled to be wrong.

great reply, idiot.

Your response was so long-winded and out in left-field, I'm happy just to let you be wrong and not wig out and call you an idiot.

@ Kenneth:  Fatcat put time into a thoughtful rebuttal of your points and you put your fingers in your ears and start humming?
Your method= FAIL
You clearly don't care b/c you're "happy to let him be wrong".  The problem is you refuse to explain why.
That also = FAIL

[fatcat]

You're entitled to be wrong.

great reply, idiot.

Your response was so long-winded and out in left-field, I'm happy just to let you be wrong and not wig out and call you an idiot.

I've got infinitely more respect for someone like Diogenes, even though i think some of his views are highly misguided and perhaps even dangerous, because he actually acts like they matter and can talk with someone who vehemently opposes his beliefs, in a respectful and intelligent manner.

Which is why I flat out insulted you which is something I wouldn't do to Diogenes cause i think he means well, even though I probably actually agree with you more.

Usually when people do what you and tell someone they're wrong without the actual important part of discussion which is why, its because either they're too unsure in their beliefs to put it up to scrutiny, or they're just being an asshole.

I posted a litany of examples of how ethics is something humans have evolved, both as a biological consequence, as part of our communal culture, and as part of our individual cognition.

You don't want to take the time to read what I have to say and put together a cogent response, thats fine.

 if you don't give a shit about what I have to say, or about explaining your beliefs  then why bother telling me that I'm wrong? Surely it can't be for my benefit (since you give no explanation), and I can't see what enjoyment you'd get out of plainly stating someone was wrong.

The idea we get ethics from  the same source, let alone a singular higher power is both incorrect, incongruous with reality, and detrimental to a cohesive understanding of ethics and social order.

Ethics surrounding race, religion, gender, sexuality, crime and justice have radically transformed pretty much all over the world except for a few minuscule backwaters.

If you're not willing to actually support your ideas, whats the point in telling other people that they're wrong (other than being a dick), or trying to win some imaginary point scoring.

If you don't care enough to back up what you believe, keep that shit to yourself.

[hellbilly]

fatcat seems to have his ducks in a row.. where is he wrong?

[anarchir]

fatcat seems to have his ducks in a row.. where is he wrong?

[The ghost of a ghost of a ghost]

fatcat seems to have his ducks in a row.. where is he wrong?

Where he has the "ENTITLEMENT TO BE WRONG"

Duh?

[cavalier973]

Assuming this is the word of the "creator", and we all got our ethics from the same "creator", seems like he missed a trick by including mostly self absorbed bullshit about worshipping himself, and forgetting to mention that slavery is bad, aswell as some other pretty important ethics that are now common place.

Unless, of course, as Creator of Man, God has designed that man's highest good comes from worshipping God.  Then it would be in a man's self-interest to worship God.  It's no use saying that God is unfair to require of man worship or anything else, since, as He is the creator of the universe and everything in it, He is also its owner, and has rights to dispose of His property as He wishes.

huh, its almost as if the judeo-christian god was a fictional creation from backwards ass middle easterners who had mostly the same dumbass social-cultural views as most other people in that area at that time.

My understanding of history is that middle-easterners in ancient times were 1. fairly sophisticated, for their time, in their social arrangements, legal system, scientific thought, etc.; and 2. polytheistic, with deities displaying human emotions and goals.  It is interesting that the ancient Hebrews bucked the polytheistic culture they lived in in favor of monotheism that centered on a Holy God who did not share illicit human passions.

The 'source' of most peoples ethics is from the culture we're brought up in, and what we figure out from then on.

I would only add, to that last statement, "what we figure out through philosophical contemplation and from study of other's writings on the subject." No one really learns in a vacuum, I think.

If you're going to give god credit for ethics, you might aswell give him credit for maths (he made the universe on which its based), music (he made the physics to make it possible), and pretty much everything else humans have been responsible for.

If I write a computer program that uses artificial intelligence to discover a Unified Theory (or a fool-proof method for picking stocks, or whatever), I should think I deserve some credit.

And then you can be a fucking subservient asshole who has no appreciation for the brilliance of human kind and wants to differ it all away to some higher power.

<close vent>

I think that no one enjoys the process of human discovery, invention, and innovation more than God, since He created man with the abiliity discover, invent, and innovate.  The most skeptical, atheistic scientist in the world glorifies God when he discovers some previously unknown knowledge about the workings of the universe.

[BobRobertson]

The most skeptical, atheistic scientist in the world glorifies God when he discovers some previously unknown knowledge about the workings of the universe.

The idea of gods is wonderful poetry, well matched by your poetic idea here. It really is a beautiful way of putting things.

Each new discovery, each time the envelope of knowledge is pushed back, things that were attributed to "the will of god" and the like are found to be natural phenomena. When underlying forces are discerned, "the will of god" is pushed back further, remaining within the unknown.

The big questions, such as "what was before what we see as the universe existed", "why are the constants of the universe these constants and not some other constants", are easily answered by saying "the will of god". And they always have been, even when the big questions were, "why does bread rise" and "why was my father struck by lightning while tending his flock of sheep in the middle of an open field during a thunderstorm?"

People have made beautiful art out of this idea of the gods, they have written great books, come up with grand philosophies and techniques of torture, epic poetry and rationalizations for uncountable murders, all at the same time. It is the will of god that the white man should enslave the black and other lesser races, otherwise it wouldn't happen...right?

The "holy" books were written by people, translated by people, aliterated, selected, discarded, rhymed and rationalized, all by people. As such, they communicate subjective human history beautifully.

Anyone who makes more of those books than that is deluding themselves.

It is my opinion that the religious mind is so insecure that "I don't know" frightens them more than all the really awful images that religions use to compel obedience from their followers. That's why I enjoy Ian's harping on the idea of christians and their belief in Hella and her infernal torture chambers.

So much less elegant than karma, but even buddhism relies on the "punishment" of having to do it all over again, endlessly, eternally, until somehow one gets it "right" this time.

Logically, it's impossible to prove a negative. One cannot prove that the gods do not exist. The scientific mind, rather than assume "the gods" as an ultimate answer, is capable of the one leap that the religious mind is too terrified to make:

"I don't know...yet."

Look around, this is it. There are no gods. All we have is what we have right here, right now. We have each other, we have this world and any other worlds we can reach to work with. We can make it better, or worse, but that is our choice, as individuals.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

There are plenty of people who believe in God (myself included) who are also involved in scientific research.  I work with biochem and currently manufacture biological drugs/vaccines.  I am also a Jew who is relatively observant.  Where is the controversy?  I've never seen one.  Neither have any of my rabbis, and I never pass up the opportunity to argue with them on a variety of subjects.

[blackie]

We can make it better, or worse, but that is our choice, as individuals.

As an individual, you have almost no control.

http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt

117. In any technologically advanced society the individual's fate
   MUST depend on decisions that he personally cannot influence to any
   great extent. A technological society cannot be broken down into
   small, autonomous communities, because production depends on the
   cooperation of very large numbers of people and machines. Such a
   society MUST be highly organized and decisions HAVE TO be made that
   affect very large numbers of people. When a decision affects, say, a
   million people, then each of the affected individuals has, on the
   average, only a one-millionth share in making the decision. What
   usually happens in practice is that decisions are made by public
   officials or corporation executives, or by technical specialists, but
   even when the public votes on a decision the number of voters
   ordinarily is too large for the vote of any one individual to be
   significant. [17] Thus most individuals are unable to influence
   measurably the major decisions that affect their lives. Their is no
   conceivable way to remedy this in a technologically advanced society.
   The system tries to "solve" this problem by using propaganda to make
   people WANT the decisions that have been made for them, but even if
   this "solution" were completely successful in making people feel
   better, it would be demeaning.
   
   118 Conservatives and some others advocate more "local autonomy."
   Local communities once did have autonomy, but such autonomy becomes
   less and less possible as local communities become more enmeshed with
   and dependent on large-scale systems like public utilities, computer
   networks, highway systems, the mass communications media, the modern
   health care system. Also operating against autonomy is the fact that
   technology applied in one location often affects people at other
   locations far away. Thus pesticide or chemical use near a creek may
   contaminate the water supply hundreds of miles downstream, and the
   greenhouse effect affects the whole world.
   
   119. The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs.
   Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs
   of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social
   ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is the
   fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but
   by technical necessity. [18] Of course the system does satisfy many
   human needs, but generally speaking it does this only to the extent
   that it is to the advantage of the system to do it. It is the needs of
   the system that are paramount, not those of the human being. For
   example, the system provides people with food because the system
   couldn't function if everyone starved; it attends to people's
   psychological needs whenever it can CONVENIENTLY do so, because it
   couldn't function if too many people became depressed or rebellious.
   But the system, for good, solid, practical reasons, must exert
   constant pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs of the
   system. Too much waste accumulating? The government, the media, the
   educational system, environmentalists, everyone inundates us with a
   mass of propaganda about recycling. Need more technical personnel? A
   chorus of voices exhorts kids to study science. No one stops to ask
   whether it is inhumane to force adolescents to spend the bulk of their
   time studying subjects most of them hate. When skilled workers are put
   out of a job by technical advances and have to undergo "retraining,"
   no one asks whether it is humiliating for them to be pushed around in
   this way. It is simply taken for granted that everyone must bow to
   technical necessity and for good reason: If human needs were put
   before technical necessity there would be economic problems,
   unemployment, shortages or worse. The concept of "mental health" in
   our society is defined largely by the extent to which an individual
   behaves in accord with the needs of the system and does so without
   showing signs of stress.
   
   120. Efforts to make room for a sense of purpose and for autonomy
   within the system are no better than a joke. For example, one company,
   instead of having each of its employees assemble only one section of a
   catalogue, had each assemble a whole catalogue, and this was supposed
   to give them a sense of purpose and achievement. Some companies have
   tried to give their employees more autonomy in their work, but for
   practical reasons this usually can be done only to a very limited
   extent, and in any case employees are never given autonomy as to
   ultimate goals -- their "autonomous" efforts can never be directed
   toward goals that they select personally, but only toward their
   employer's goals, such as the survival and growth of the company. Any
   company would soon go out of business if it permitted its employees to
   act otherwise. Similarly, in any enterprise within a socialist system,
   workers must direct their efforts toward the goals of the enterprise,
   otherwise the enterprise will not serve its purpose as part of the
   system. Once again, for purely technical reasons it is not possible
   for most individuals or small groups to have much autonomy in
   industrial society. Even the small-business owner commonly has only
   limited autonomy. Apart from the necessity of government regulation,
   he is restricted by the fact that he must fit into the economic system
   and conform to its requirements. For instance, when someone develops a
   new technology, the small-business person often has to use that
   technology whether he wants to or not, in order to remain competitive.

[BobRobertson]

As an individual, you have almost no control.

Interesting. I seem to have complete control over myself.

Is there some definition of "control" that I don't know?

[blackie]

As an individual, you have almost no control.

Interesting. I seem to have complete control over myself.

Is there some definition of "control" that I don't know?

You have no control over "this world".

We have each other, we have this world and any other worlds we can reach to work with. We can make it better, or worse, but that is our choice, as individuals.