Atheism for Dummies (this doesn't even warm me up, much less qualify as exercise)
or
Atheism for the person who doesn't beilieve that it is all about ME!
or
Atheism for the person who can't understand that it is all about NOT believing in ANYTHING.
or
Atheism for the closed-minded, or at least for those who aren't open-minded enough to believe in Chuck Darwin or the current theory of the origin and evolution of life.
or
Atheism for the ... Oh what the helk, these book are all written for people who don't understand something, so we have chosen the word dummie, we could just as well have used the word ignorant but most people hate that word.
Fiery, were you going for a laugh or do you seriously believe everyone understands the whole Bible? I am hoping for the laugh because the other option is beneath you.
Atheism for Dummies (the complete text): There is no god(s).
Glob- YOU don't even understand your own fucking bible. YOU have never taken a real hard look at the bible and tried to understand what it ACTUALLY says about god.
So fuck straight off with your MISunderstanding of atheism you close-minded stupid git. You've been reading my blog for nearly a year and have gained NO understanding of what it means to be an atheist.
Your eyes gloss over the words we write looking for little catch phrases you can jump on and copy-paste your religious twaddle afterwards. But nowhere have you shown any signs of growth or development as a person.
Reg: I know you won't belive this but your words over the small period of time I've known you are really starting to "click" and I really believe that you may hold the key to spiritual reconciliation and I'm very keen to catch up and discuss it further. Your insight is mindblowing and made me think a lot about your world view and...
Fiery, so what did you think of 'The Holy Spirit' by Billy Graham? Not to mention all those other books on your shelf, no...you're not....no couldnt be...not a closet religious book reader? please tell me no!!
I see Reg is stirring, cant be bothered going through any of his dumbass shit again so I'm gonna pretend he's not there :-|
Well, I guess I, obviously the only open minded person in this bunch, will sign off. Self delusion is a sad thing to have to see and I don't have to see it. I have been coming here by choice. I am sorry that I haven't been able to dent your "nonbelief system" but that IS what the Bible says.
I wish you all the best but without a skeptic giving you alternative views, I am afraid you will most likely stagnate in life.
Best wishes on your trip fiery, and everyone else best wishes on whatever it is you do.
Someday Glob, you are going to realize that words have exact meanings.
You might want to start with "open-mind"- receptive to new ideas or reason. Doesn't call to mind you Glob in any stretch of the imagination.
"delusion"- a false belief held in spite of invalidating evidence. This is you all over Glob.
"skeptic"- one who doubts, questions or disagrees. You might disagree with me Glob, but you have never once taken a close look at your own beliefs. Never once realized... *sigh*
Hi Thump! LOL, nah, that piece of crap isn't mine nor any others that you see there. I was at B.Dalton's Bookstore when I noticed that little gem on the shelf and had to snap a pic. Yep, it's true. I take pictures of interesting things I see in stores.
Skeptic about what? evolution? Glob the jury has been in for ages evolution is a fact! It's not something to believe in or not believe in you may as well say your skeptical about the Earth orbiting the Sun, you will be taken just as seriously. It's what you get for being sir snide! Ha! open minded? OPEN MINDED?? You sure take the cake! It is truly great to see the end of you sir snide, bout time you took the hint hope you have fun continuing to believe in fairies and ghosts we'll stick to reality thanks.
Johnny, science doesn't require a jury, or are you too closed minded to understand you god, scienc?
Fiery, you don't know me, you don't know what I have looked at in myself. I have been open minded enough to believe you when you said you have. I am sorry you couldn't do the same, or is it your close minded view that can't accept even the possibility that you are wrong. Even Dawkins, your high priest, admits life's origin is unexplainable.
I found this site and, openmindedly, listened and opined (sometimes a bit snotty). I was hoping to understand. However, all I found was angst, bitterness, and a total lack of tolerance for any dissent. But I guess that is the current definition of tolerance.
I have tried to smash all of your delusion that there is no consequence for having a lack of belief in any god. But, you can't admit that not believing in a god even has a consequence, talk about a delusion, unless it is a total lie.
As far as skeptics, I am the only skeptic here. Without me, all you have is a bunch of idiots and a few sparks of light, Richard, Fiery for the most part, patting yourselves on the back. When you have a bunch of skeptics together, there are no skeptics. So have fun with your little love fest.
Reg...to an atheist, not believing in any god HAS no consequences.
If there is a god....Yahweh, Zeus, whomever...and he exempts penalty for non-belief then after I die I'll pay the penalty for not believing. If there isn't any god, I pay no penalty. If I believe in the WRONG god...what's the penalty? Only Yahweh seems to put a penalty on non-believers in him. Never read in any other mythology (yes, I consider the Bible a mythology too) that the god(s) punished people for unbelief. They may have meted out capricious punishments for other reasons (Prometheus on the rock comes to mind), but not for unbelief. (If there is an example, please let me know.)
Your concern for our souls is only useful if Yahweh is the real god. I respect that you believe he is. You need to respect that we don't believe he is, that there isn't ANY god.
I do consider myself a skeptic. Prove things to us.
Evolution has nothing to do with Life's Origin. Dawkins admits that. Everyone who believes in evolution admits that. We aren't sure how life started. We are looking for proofs. We have some ideas and are testing them. If we find we are wrong, we'll try another hypothesis. But just saying "god did it" won't satisfy us. We want to try and PROVE how it happened. Then we will believe how life started, just like we belive evolution works.
See all that shite you've just written is so typical of you glob, oh boo hoo I am the one who has been open minded I am the one one who has been reasonable only I am the skeptic here, you are full of shit. See how you term things in the way of a typical zealot, "I have tried to smash your delusion that there is no consequence of not believing in god", absolute fucking rubbish huh what is the consequence? Terms like your high priest dawkins, what fucking rot! All he is is an evolutionary biologist glob is that so hard to grasp! If you don't want to believe in facts glob that is your business frankly I couldn't give a rats toss bag what you want to believe that is entirely your business, in fact glob I respect the fact that you are allowed to believe whatever you like (does not mean that I have to respect the belief itself) but when you come here uninvited and start bandying about your shite then of course we are going to tell you that you're wrong when you are. If you'll remember there where times when the talk turned to other matters and people actually agreed with you but the question of whether evolution is true is just simply not up for discussion IT IS A FACT FULLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, now if you want to talk about the exact mechanisms and the nitty gritty then sure there is room for discussion there. If you want to flat out deny then you are an ignorant fool whao has wasted all his time by reading the made up bible. You keep banging on about lifes origins and by the way dawkins does not say lifes origins are unexplainable at all, unexplainable means it can't be explained, and that is your entire problem you are ill informed, like so many of you anti science freaks you loosly grasp the concepts but not the underlying facts and this is what you need to understand.
"Sometimes a bit snotty" what are you driveling about the way you phrase your so called understanding has always been more than snotty it has been downright backhanded even this your supposed last post (although I thought your post before that was your last!) is dripping with contempt and it has never been far from the surface with you has it, we are not idiots and nor are we fools now are you going to fuck off or what?
maggie, You forgot one possibility, that you are right. However, I am referring to the FACT that there is a consequence to your unbelief. Your lack of belief can only lead to one possible scenario. IT IS ALL ABOUT YOU. If you want to continue the delusion that lack of belief has no consequence, go for it.
And while you may respect me, no one else does. That is the closed mindedness I am talking about. Maggie, go back and read some of the old posts, I am the village idiot to these people and I am fine with that. But they are the ones who claim to be opened minded, a fact that is clearly wrong.
I can't prove the origin of life and neither can you. So who is wrong? I am skeptical of your claim, you are skeptical of mine. But the day I leave this site all skepticism will end. It will be fiery and her "yes" men.
You said... "We want to try and PROVE how it happened. Then we will believe how life started, just like we belive evolution works." You have already ruled out any kind of intelligence, your supposition is that it "happened" implying that it was chance or nature or whatever fancy word you want to use. The reality is that you already have your mind made up (just like me by the way) which is the farthest think from skeptisism. Deal with that.
Johnny, You are a simpleton. The consequence of lack of belief in god is that you now are only left with evolution. Whatever the current theory is. That is the consequence. You always try to leave your lack of belief sitting there like a lump of clay when in reality that clay has to bring forth life all by itself. Delusion.
But do on patting each other on the back, pretend that everyone who ever came the the conclusion that there is a god is stupid, go on, enjoy.
I think my eyes just rolled out the back of my head. The consequence of lack of belief in god is that you now are only left with evolution. Simpleton? I tell you what glob I am in with a good crowd then if you think I am a simpleton for believing in abiogenesis
You continue to get evolution mixed up with abiogenisis as I stated before your problem is that you losely grasp(in the case of abiogenisis extremely loosely and erroniously bind it with evolution) concepts oh they're saying life all of a sudden started from nothing, no we are not saying that at all life at it's most basic level is simply the replication of ordered comlex molecules. It is hardly all of a sudden it took over 1000 million years before life first started on Earth.
Now which consequence is it glob? That we are only left with evolution (sic) or that it is all about the individual? Or have you got a different consequence for each of us? I can't wait to here what Fiery's is ooohh and I wonder what Richard's is? It is all about us glob, frankly what you are implying is disgusting and that is why you struggle to garner respect. I care about a lot of people more than I care about myself and really why would we even need a god for empathy? Why? It is such a ridiculous notion bah to you! You still just have not learned a thing from all your "openmindedness" have you. Believing in god does not equal selflessness anymore than being an atheist does.
A person HAS to tie evolution with some type of origin. That is a fact. And however you want to define life is of no consequence to reality.
Now as to your "good crowd", I am also in a good crowd, and a helk of a lot bigger crowd. Your simple logic won't allow me to claim that religion is a valid option simply because of the vast number of people who believe it. You on the other hand keep throwing out the idea of "crowd" and "jury", you have two post in this particular discussion and both of them refer to your consensus. You are the definition of a simpleton. Too bad you can't think for yourself.
She appears to be agnostic as opposed to atheist. Technically speaking agnostics sit on the fence, hoping to get off on the safe side, but unable to settle on which it is.
Maggie there cannot be a God, b/c the supernatural cannot live apart from the Universe (everything there is) let alone create it. Nor can he make himself, because if there is Nothing, nothing can be done with it. The Universe, and its fundamental units of matter (whatever they are) is eternal, timeless. Time and space exist only *in* the Universe, and cannot exist outside of it because there is no outside (so there is nowhere 'else' God could be).
Maggie, your life is yours, look after it wisely. After the use of your own mind and the actions it produces in your body, nothing but other people and a bit of luck will keep you alive and happy. That is absolutely wonderful, because it IS all about you, understandable natural laws and your choices, not some damned witch doctor or some unfathomable capricious super Being yanking your chain.
blog-geR::Reg-Golb wrote this to you, Maggie: "Your lack of belief can only lead to one possible scenario. IT IS ALL ABOUT YOU."
That is exactly how it should be, but done rationally that means properly recognizing one's values. That in turn means recognizing valuable family from useless family, valuable friends from uncertain acquaintances, valuable businessmen from troublesome ones and treating them all proportionately. Ultimately every organism lives for itself or suffers for failing to correctly do so ... and that applies to people too.
Glob, an open mind is not an open garbage can. You have spewed arguments that your once-open garbage can has thoughtlessly accepted, but you then fastened down the lid! Closed for business! That business is understanding You & the Universe where you live.
Having done that you have utterly failed to respond to any of the better arguments here that clearly challenge your beliefs. That is, you have deliberately evaded them, which is dishonest in itself(isn't dishonesty un-Christian?), and makes your claim of having an open mind equally dishonest. On the other hand we have addressed your arguments, often at length. So who is close-minded?
A good example is your crushingly stupid notion (given that it has been discussed before your face) that life on earth just happened by "chance". I took the time here to explain how it is a natural mechanism, and one that operated prior to any particular structures evolved that could be called life. No 'Intelligent Design' is required. The origin of life is no more a matter of "chance" than is falling when there is gravity. That mechanism is called Natural Selection... and that mechanism is completely beyond doubt. Natural Selection also causes speciation, and hence Darwinian Evolution. It is Mechanism, not chance.
No we do not know the particulars of the spedific molecules involved, since they are most likely beyond the reach of the paleontological record, and are too minuscule to survive 4.5 billion years in any recognizable form. However, that mechanism is VASTLY more likely than something from outside the Universe saying "Let there be light" and 'bing' there is light... no sun, or stars, just 'light'.
As Ellen DeGeneris put it: "There was still nothing, but you could see it a whole lot better."
The Bahble and belief in gods are just a crock of shit, Glob, and you have fallen for it like old ladies being scammed by con artists.
I should add that Maggie has not made up her mind in the same way or manner that you have! In fact, as an agnostic, she is still thinking.
People can make up their minds rationally, on the basis of legitimate evidence, or by mindlessly accepting bullshit. "Making up one's mind" may be the phrase applied to the two approaches, but the only legitimate approach is with evidence and reason. By contrast you, Glob, like all Fundies, make up your mind with no evidence or reason, and in so doing render your mind less useful than your asshole.
Like I said Richard is intelligent and apparently the only one honest enough to admit the consequence of atheism.
Richard can't even bring himself to say Johnny is right about his jury and his crowd. At least Richard won't be Fiery's yes man.
By the way, Fiery must also be agnostic. She said that if God showed up at her door she would kick him in the groin. As if that would hurt him, she already killed his only son.
WTF consequences of atheism are you talking about? I have tried to smash all of your delusion that there is no consequence for having a lack of belief in any god. But, you can't admit that not believing in a god even has a consequence, talk about a delusion, unless it is a total lie.
Do you even read the drivel you write? You're not making any points to respond to.
Of course there are consequences to being an atheist. Just not eternal ones. I don't have to go to church. I don't have to pray to anybody. I'm not afraid of burning in hell.
My life. My responsibility.
And the whole kick god in the nuts. Go find that quote and read the whole context you cock knuckle. Once again you're picking at phrases and not reading or understanding what has been said.
Protium wants me to tell you to fuck off. You've promised to leave 3 times today.
Address issues or avail yourself of the little red X and take your snide remarks and tip the fuck out the door.
GLOB SAID: "By the way, Fiery must also be agnostic. She said that if God showed up at her door she would kick him in the groin. As if that would hurt him, she already killed his only son."
Its all in YOUR head glob, I think its time you moved on, spewing all this religious crap on an Atheists blog doesnt mean a thing to the rest of us. We're all freethinkers here, no big boogie man rules our lives.
We all know you'll still be lurking around because you wont be able to resist seeing what is happening next with the freethinkers.
Just get on with your closed minded life and dont ask too many hard questions of yourself, your head might explode!
Goodbye and good luck with your search for a life with religious meaning glob, you'll need a lot of luck to keep fooling yourself lol!
blog-geR, what the heck to you mean by admit the consequence of atheism? If you mean the idea of selfishness, then absolutely! Unselfishness is an abhorrently immoral approach to ethics.
One of the things that is infuriating about religionists is their view that morality IS altruism. This is a fallacy that Rand viewed as a "Frozen Abstraction". Rather than grasping that there are other approaches to an idea or context, the mind that 'freezes' becomes fixated on a particular element of an abstraction that is more complex than they are willing to face. Rather than grasping the full meaning of the idea, they become fixated on one element as if it was the only *kind*.
Imagine thinking a dog is a Black Labrador Retriever, and refusing to accept that a Border Collie might also be a dog too. The man with the Frozen Abstraction can only accept that dog's retrieve ducks or pheasants, and rejects the entire notion that sheep herding by Border Collies might have anything to do with dogs. They simply blank out the full meaning of dog, except when it is the Retriever. Well, Selfishness is a form of morality, just as Border Collies are a kind of dog. Now, work with selfishness. What does selfishness really do for a man's life? Since morality is a code of choices and actions one takes to guide one through life, imagine if the ONLY code was self-sacrifice! The human race would have become extinct tens of thousands of years ago. Border Collies are dogs and (rational) Selfishness is a kind of morality --the only valid kind.
In effect, morality, which subsumes more than one view becomes, in their Frozen minds, synonymous with THEIR morality. In this case, with altruism (i.e. with self sacrifice, whether to other Men, or to newts, spotted owls, baby seals, fur, and ancient trees).
Morality also includes selfishness. That selfishness can be irrational or rational.
I am an unabashed advocate of rational selfishness.
As for Fiery talking about God showing up at her door, she is allowing, for the moment, the notion that God is real, for the sole sake of making the point that she would kick him in the groin. That is not an agnostic position, it is a position of argument. The two differ!
Wait! Did I not just speak of failure to understand the difference between Maggie's approach to an idea and Reg's? The same kind of difference lies between Maggie's (apparent) agnosticism and Fiery's momentary USE of God for argument. Fiery is an atheist making a point about the nature of your god, Maggie is fence-sitting (unless she wishes to clarify her position).
You see Reg, your mind is pooched... a Dog's Breakfast of confusion. Seriously, and without rancor, your thinking is a mess.
As for the "jury" thing, the facts exist apart from any human contrivance or belief. Facts are "out in reality", and if we grasp them correctly then we have the Truth. Where the facts of nature speak for themselves, it is just a matter of the human mind grasping them.
In contrast, a jury weighs the facts available to decide the moral and legal nature of a man's actions. Truth is a matter of fact, and legal decisions strive to be a matter of fact. In a trial, the "jury" exists to evaluate facts. They do the best they can with what they have. However, if doubt remains, unlike you, they must disregard the guilty verdict and let the accused go free. This differs from proving a truth. With some ideas scientists must continue questioning. Then, when the evidence is incontrovertible they (should) accept the evidence as proof of a new fact of nature, and therefore, as truth. The two processes are distinctly different. I wish Al -consensus- Gore understood the difference.
Evolution is a Truth. So, I accept Johnny's position on Evolution because the evidence is in. However, I do so on my own terms, not on Johnny's. I do it on the basis of facts that neither you nor Johnny can alter or deny. You may fail to reach the same conclusion as Johnny and I, by evading the meaning of those facts, but we choose to face them for what they are.
The forgoing applies to both Evolution and the existence of some magical God-Being. The former is absolute, the latter is the ravings of nomadic shepherds sustained over two millennia by men who are unable to distinguish fairy tales from reality.
No worries Richard, you could say we're joined at the hip :)
My trashing of glob was a quick off the cuff affair, whereas yours was bloody marvellous, hot diggity brilliant and dog dammn it I wish glob would read and absorb all your answers, they are all filled with such rational and logical explanations, thanks for the time you put into it Richard!!!
Fiery, Your post was equally as fantastic, you telling glob where to go...woo hoo good on you, who needs a knuckle dragger spouting his crap all the time, not to mention that he doesnt listen to anything anyone says....totally a lost cause!
Like I said Richard is intelligent and apparently the only one honest enough to admit the consequence of atheism.
You are indeed obtuse glob
That is exactly how it should be, but done rationally that means properly recognizing one's values. That in turn means recognizing valuable family from useless family, valuable friends from uncertain acquaintances, valuable businessmen from troublesome ones and treating them all proportionately. Ultimately every organism lives for itself or suffers for failing to correctly do so ... and that applies to people too. Did you even read that glob? Do you even understand what that means Glob.
Your implication of selfishness is that under all circumstances an atheist will fuck everybody else over for themselves, and that is what I am replying to and that is not what Richard is saying.
Selfishness is doing right by one's self if that person has decent morals then that means in certain circumstances they will behave selflessly in respect to certain others, do you honestly believe that in a situation where Richard had to choose himself over his childred he would choose himself? I don't think so (maybe I'm wrong only Rich knows).
Going to a war torn country and risking your life for complete strangers because it's the selfless christian thing to do is stupid, donating a kidney to a complete stranger because it's the christian thing to do is stupid, donating money to someone when you can't afford it but it is the christian thing to do is stupid. People who do the christian thing are non thinking drones.
The jury is in is a phrase glob look at how you scramble and fuss over the tiny non important remarks to try and point score which you don't even do, same with thinking Fiery must be agnostic, you prised idiot! Turns of phrase don't mean anything, saying oh my god doesn't mean you believe in god anymore than saying the jury is in means that 12 people went into a room and decided that evolution was true! It is a phrase meaning something is true nothing more nothing less.
Johnny wrote: "Selfishness is doing right by one's self if that person has decent morals then that means in certain circumstances they will behave selflessly in respect to certain others, do you honestly believe that in a situation where Richard had to choose himself over his childred [aic]he would choose himself? I don't think so (maybe I'm wrong only Rich knows). "
Of course I would choose my children first, but Johnny makes a common error with respect to that action being selfless!
When I do something for my kids, even if I know it will result in my death, my choice is full blown selfishness!! It is no sacrifice.
Any parent who just stands and watches, as their child plays on a railroad track seconds before the train smashes her to bits, is not selfish. That parent is watching one of his highest values be destroyed and is doing nothing about it. For the rest of his life he will know that he stood by and let that wonderful child be reduced to road kill. (I felt the same way about a woman once.) Imagine having such a memory about that as a reminder of the nature of your character, forever!
Here is another example of selflessness. A young man of some twenty years of age was severely beaten by a gang at a Toronto subway station. They did not even know him, and beat him up just for kicks. Shortly after he regained consciousness in a hospital he was interviewed by a reporter. He said he wanted Torontonians to know that, as a Christian, he loved his attackers as much as he loved his mother and girlfriend. Basically he is saying that all the good within his mother and girlfriend was of the same value to him as the evil in the scum who ganged up on him and nearly killed him. Nice!
And another: In China, a man was lauded as a national! hero. He had returned home one night to discover that the building he shared with another family was in flames. He rushed into the other family's home first, rescuing them one by one, even as he knew his own family was burning to death. He left his own family to die in flames!!That is selflessness, and the reason the communists considered him to be a hero.
(Johnny, unless it is a typo, "prised" or "prized" means to pry an object off or out of something using some sort of tool. Probably you just meant "prize idiot".)
pssst!! Richard... Nobody is correcting your typos. Put down the red pen so a person has a chance to respond to what you've written instead of throwing wads of paper when you turn back to the chalk board.
Oh! And Glob! Take a look at this. Two atheists quibbling over a point. I bet they are both rational enough to come to some sort of understanding about the point each was trying to make.
If I was sure it was just a typo I wouldn't have said anything... look at all the typos in his comment that I did NOT comment on.
I wondered if he was using some vernacular term with a meaning I did not know. When I looked it up at dictionary.com nothing helped me on that. Did Johnny mean something more, that I was missing, or was it really just a typo?
I can see that I should have worded my parenthetical note to Johnny more in the terms I provided above.
Selfishness is doing right by one's self if that person has decent morals then that means in certain circumstances they will behave selflessly in respect to certain others
I am not in error, here selflessly strictly means without regard to ones personal safety or wellbeing not more nor less.
Any parent who just stands and watches, as their child plays on a railroad track seconds before the train smashes her to bits, is not selfish. That parent is watching one of his highest values be destroyed and is doing nothing about it. For the rest of his life he will know that he stood by and let that wonderful child be reduced to road kill. (I felt the same way about a woman once.) Imagine having such a memory about that as a reminder of the nature of your character, forever!
A somewhat interesting way to phrase that Richard, probably not intuitive to most including me and possibly not the whole story, when love is involved reasoning becomes a little murky. I would concur that the afterthought of shame is certainly a big motivating factor, again most would baulk at saying that, I did at first when I was thinking it, but when all thoughts are reduced it seems to be. I considered a situation where my child was killed and I could do nothing about it, I would obviously be totally devestated then I thought how would it be different if the same thing happened and I had the opportunity to save her with my life or by my actions and I did not.The difference would be a memory about that as a reminder of the nature of your character, forever!. Intuitively most would just say I would do it because I love them and do it and know nothing because they would be dead.
I am glad you did put it in such a clinical manner though because it has made think a little deeper on the subject and specifically about most human motivation and in particular christian sacrifice which ultimately is as selfish any other persons motivation to do things. Why does a fundy committ act of self sacrifice? Ultimately because either they think by doing so they will go to heaven -selfish, or because they are told to by god, same outcome. Which I suppose ultimately shows up their "higher" morals as being bogus now doesn't it?
Hahahaha prised was a typo of sorts, I am not sure what I intended to put I knew that prised meant to jimmy using a jimmy although I would say to jemmy using a jemmy wouldn't I Fiery seeing as we specifically discussed this earlier on, even looked up respective dictionaries of course mine being the trusted Maquarrie Australian Dictionary. Having said that prized as opposed to prised here is sometimes used as in -this is coppied from a website about historical homebuilding- Passive Solar Heating Roofing is lightweight, high insulation thatch of reeds grown on site (estimated R3.0 or better is carried to site from Kathmandu by Sherpas and fitted into frames hand sawn on site from highly prized local timber. Sometimes it is used in terms of something having being given a prize as in a prized wine but usually, like this example, it means highly sought after. If you want to find it anywhere you need to type "prized aussie vernacular" into google and I think it probably has to be the australian google page ie: google.com.au
What I was really concerned about was not using a z, I find them deplorable when exchanged for the English s being brought up using Australian english which is very akin to English english or as my mum would have it, the queens english. Oh by the way whenever I use the letter z you have to read it as zed never ever zee MWWWWWWWWWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hey hey hey now go easy there aren't that many typos are there?>:| and I don't count bad grammar as being a typo!
Hi, Richard. I was away all last night so missed your comments until today. Guess I worded my statements poorly. I am more atheist than agnostic (a 5 or 6 on Dawkins' scale in The God Delusion). But I tried to explain to Reg that I don't see the consequences the way he does, and tried to re-word Occam's Razor to show him how I don't believe, but IF I am wrong (and yes, I will accept that as a very FAINT possibility) then I will accept and cope with any consequences. Personally, I don't believe in any god(s), and believe that when we are dead, we are dead (except in the memories of those who love us). No heaven, no hell, no purgatory ...actually makes me a little sad; ;-) (I love Dante's Divine Comedy, it's nice poetry in many of the translations. I don't read Italian)
Its funny how interesting, convivial and enjoyable the conversation has become since blogknob has left the building along with his snide and derogatory remarks, I say good riddance and hope he never darkens your doorstep (well virtual doorstep) again Fiery, 3 cheers everyone!! :-)
The leading advocates of altruism are perhaps more evil than most people care to imagine. However, even in small doses it is still a poison. That is why I commented as I did. Immanuel Kant is one of the most revered philosophers of them all. His ideas, and those of other philosophers who have run with his ideas (thru Hegel, then Marx), have dominated academia and support religious altruism (which was a major part of Kant's purpose).
This is from Kant (emphasis is mine): "An action is moral, said Kant, only if one has no desire to perform it, but performs it out of a sense of duty and derives no benefit from it of any sort, neither material nor spiritual; a benefit destroys the moral value of an action."
Elsewhere he expands on what he means by "no benefit". This, adjusted quotation is from the Ayn Rand Lexicon: "The arch-advocate of 'duty' is Immanuel Kant; he went so much farther than other theorists that they seem innocently benevolent by comparison. "Duty," he holds, is the only standard of virtue; but virtue is not its own reward: if a reward is involved, it is no longer virtue. The only moral motivation, he holds, is devotion to duty for duty's sake; only an action motivated exclusively by such devotion is a moral action (i.e., an action performed without any concern for "inclination" [desire] or self-interest)."
So, according to Kant, even Christians are not really altruistic if their self sacrifice is performed in the hope of reaching Heaven.
Because the above is the full meaning of altruism and self sacrifice, it is the distinction that I think must be made between real selfless acts and selfish acts. Saving your children from a burning building, even if you die trying, is a selfish act.
Christians work toward Kantian selflessness as their ideal, and interpret most acts on those terms. The same is true of Communists, hence the Chinaman who rescued the other family as his own died. Of course, no one can live very long if they were to fully pursue such a moral code... they must die. Those who accept that morality therefore live a life of guilt and confusion (in the face of such an appalling contradiction). But Kant and religion throw in the despicable caveat that you must stay alive just enough to continue sacrificing yourself, out of duty to others or to God (by serving others).
If that is not enough, consider the evil in this: "It is a duty to preserve one's life, and moreover everyone has a direct inclination to do so. But for that reason the often anxious care which most men take of it has no intrinsic worth, and the maxim of doing so has no moral import. They preserve their lives according to duty, but not from duty. But if adversities and hopeless sorrow completely take away the relish for life, if an unfortunate man, strong in soul, is indignant rather than despondent or dejected over his fate and wishes for death, and yet preserves his life without loving it and from neither inclination nor fear but from duty—then his maxim has a moral import" (Immanuel Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, ed. R. P. Wolff, New York, Bobbs-Merrill, 1969, pp. 16–17).
So the lower and more awful these 'others' are, that we must live for, the better --which is why we see Mother Theresa, eager ministers 'converting' murderers on death row. The same phenomenon, carefully unnamed, brings the Western World & United Nations to sympathize with terrorist Palestinians over peaceful Israelis or the IOC choosing communist dictatorships for the Olympics. .
The morality of altruism stems from believing that the Universe is a figment of some God's imagination (Metaphysics) and that knowledge is only a function of what that God expects of you (Epistemology). The Communists/Socialists (proper term is Collectivists) substitute collective humanity for God and accept the same morality (a Collective is not *a* thing or entity any more than is God, in this context) Note that both systems can then justify the murdering of those who disagree with them, by the million, because they are a rebuke to the 'greater good' (god)!!
Over the last 50 years a new 'god' is the Environment, and men must sacrifice to newts, spotted owls, old trees and rocks --yes rocks, which I have mentioned elsewhere on the AtheistHomeschooler Blog! Those who refuse, however scientifically and factually, to support massive economic and technological changes to 'help' reduce the human "carbon footprint" are evil "deniers" unwilling to join the moral high ground of sacrificing his lifestyle "for the planet". Environmentalists have attacked them and have killed a few, with the same kind of justification as religionists and collectivists. Leading environmentalists have called for imprisonment of deniers, and have attempted to use their political positions to ban scientific literature that contradicts environmentalists' conclusions about global warming.
Altruism is by far the World's dominant moral system and, for most people, moral belief (read: altruism) trumps reason and science,
All the quoted materials are from this web page (which in turn is from several books).
Pascal's wager: -the argument put forth by Blaise Pascal that it is in one's best interest to believe in the existence of God, as it is a rational assumption and does no harm, and the possibility of eternal punishment in hell outweighs any advantage of believing otherwise.
I think Blaise's wager is wrongheaded: 1. God is not, in any way a rational assumption (well explained elsewhere on this blog). 2. Eternal punishment in Hell is not, in any way a rational assumption. 3. To remain uncertain on an arbitrary proposition is to allow one's mind to avoid clarity of thought. If it allows itself one such weakness, how many more can be allowed? What will such a mind do with the next appealing, arbitrary proposition?
Remaining uncertain on matters of importance is a concession to unreason, a purposefully permitted crack in one's mental faculty... and for what? Is it to seem to be 'nice' to others on some topic? Is it out of unending distrust of one;s own judgment. Is it distrust of the laws of the Universe. Is it distrust of one's senses? Every one of those 'reasons' is a kind of doubt, a crack in the edifice that is the content of one's mind. The crack allows the unreal, the arbitrary, to gain traction in one's mind. In some ways the agnostic is more evil than the committed religionist. Where the religionist is willing to stand or fall on their belief, the agnostic perennially waffles in a fuzzy purgatory of their own making, between reason and unreason, between life and death.
It is that crack of uncertainty is what religionists seek to create or widen. They put their children in Sunday School to ensure such cracks form in the very foundation of each childs developing 'edifice'. (Public schools do it too, but in a different way.) Since so much of a child's valid knowledge comes from others, very few five year olds are equiped to recognize the arbitrary should it be slipped in too.
Ayn Rand's definition of honesty is "the recognition that the unreal IS unreal". That is a brilliant description of honesty, because it shows that the purpose of the properly functioning mind is to accept only what is real, and no more. By that definition, it is clear how religionists are fundamentally dishonest. That dishonesty takes place when they accept that first 'crack'. Then, over time, they comparmentalize their knowledge of having allowed that crack, hiding from its occurrence until it is fully forgotten. They will be indignant if someone suggests they are dishonest. But the crack remains and so does the intellectual approach that permitted it. Their 'edifice' of knowledge is weakened until the next appealing, arbitrary proposition prompts them. What is ultimately a wishful, emotion driven, whim ("No heaven, no hell, no purgatory ...actually makes me a little sad"), is permitted by that dishonest approach, widening the crack or causing a new crack, and reinforcing belief that the approach is acceptable.
Of course, it would be unjust to morally condemn someone who is honestly working through their knowledge, but nor is it moral for them to allow matters, of legitimate concern to them, to languish. To do so would be unselfish!
I seriously doubt glob has ever considered this, so it reveals his lack of honesty to himself.
"Of course, it would be unjust to morally condemn someone who is honestly working through their knowledge"
His lack of honesty invites condemnation, which can be justified by his ability to continually ignore everything anyone says, and his seeming inability to believe that anyone else has anything of import to say.
Once again Richard has offered so much rational information, amazingly easy to understand and offered in such a way that invites a strong desire to learn more.
Could the internally dishonest glob ever seriously study these words and really and truly get something out of all this?
No, I believe he cant because he is determined to stay hidden behind...
"What you think is your mental 'edifice' is apparently nothing more than a heap of broken bricks, proudly gleaned from other broken buildings."
...he is forever doomed to lurk in amongst the bricks only ever peeping out to quickly yell snide unintelligent comments before slithering back amongst the bricks.
Goodbye globlet, no one wants you here monkey boy, by your own hand you're now forced to lurk in the background with no voice.
Gosh TTEyes, thank you so much for your kind remarks [blushes, and turns quiet].
"Of course, it would be unjust to morally condemn someone who is honestly working through their knowledge."
Some of us may remember that, that was how I began with Reg, because he periodically came up with some interesting comments that spurred further discussion. It is clearly no longer Just to grant him any such opening to be honest.
That remark was largely intended for Fiery's gentle new arrival, Maggie Rosethorn. My comments regarding agnosticism might seem harsh to her, but were in no way intended to hurt her feelings.
Sometimes it is difficult to divorce established thoughts from the feelings they engender. The consequence is that a challenge to those thoughts amounts to a spear into the heart of those feelings.
The pain of the spear can be felt so severely that it blocks one's ability to examine the most honest challenge to the very thoughts that causes those feelings.
Resisting that pain, for the greater value that is clear understanding, can be a terrific challenge. However, the more often it is exercised the easier it becomes, until one would never want it any other way. Such is the nature of human volition applied to one's own conceptual faculty.
49 comments:
Nearly spewed Sprite thru my nose...
:D
WOOHOO! Always a win if I can get the beverage in the nostrils or on the keyboard.
I wonder what the title would be for the atheist?
Atheism for Dummies (this doesn't even warm me up, much less qualify as exercise)
or
Atheism for the person who doesn't beilieve that it is all about ME!
or
Atheism for the person who can't understand that it is all about NOT believing in ANYTHING.
or
Atheism for the closed-minded, or at least for those who aren't open-minded enough to believe in Chuck Darwin or the current theory of the origin and evolution of life.
or
Atheism for the ... Oh what the helk, these book are all written for people who don't understand something, so we have chosen the word dummie, we could just as well have used the word ignorant but most people hate that word.
Fiery, were you going for a laugh or do you seriously believe everyone understands the whole Bible? I am hoping for the laugh because the other option is beneath you.
Atheism for Dummies (the complete text): There is no god(s).
Glob- YOU don't even understand your own fucking bible. YOU have never taken a real hard look at the bible and tried to understand what it ACTUALLY says about god.
So fuck straight off with your MISunderstanding of atheism you close-minded stupid git. You've been reading my blog for nearly a year and have gained NO understanding of what it means to be an atheist.
Your eyes gloss over the words we write looking for little catch phrases you can jump on and copy-paste your religious twaddle afterwards. But nowhere have you shown any signs of growth or development as a person.
You small minded twit.
I wonder just how apologist that book is?
Reg: I know you won't belive this but your words over the small period of time I've known you are really starting to "click" and I really believe that you may hold the key to spiritual reconciliation and I'm very keen to catch up and discuss it further. Your insight is mindblowing and made me think a lot about your world view and...
Nah Fuck it! I can't even pretend... sorry...
Fuck Off Reg ya snide, deluded, un-educated cunt!
Fiery, so what did you think of 'The Holy Spirit' by Billy Graham? Not to mention all those other books on your shelf, no...you're not....no couldnt be...not a closet religious book reader? please tell me no!!
I see Reg is stirring, cant be bothered going through any of his dumbass shit again so I'm gonna pretend he's not there :-|
Well, I guess I, obviously the only open minded person in this bunch, will sign off. Self delusion is a sad thing to have to see and I don't have to see it. I have been coming here by choice. I am sorry that I haven't been able to dent your "nonbelief system" but that IS what the Bible says.
I wish you all the best but without a skeptic giving you alternative views, I am afraid you will most likely stagnate in life.
Best wishes on your trip fiery, and everyone else best wishes on whatever it is you do.
Someday Glob, you are going to realize that words have exact meanings.
You might want to start with
"open-mind"- receptive to new ideas or reason. Doesn't call to mind you Glob in any stretch of the imagination.
"delusion"- a false belief held in spite of invalidating evidence. This is you all over Glob.
"skeptic"- one who doubts, questions or disagrees. You might disagree with me Glob, but you have never once taken a close look at your own beliefs. Never once realized... *sigh*
Hi Thump! LOL, nah, that piece of crap isn't mine nor any others that you see there. I was at B.Dalton's Bookstore when I noticed that little gem on the shelf and had to snap a pic. Yep, it's true. I take pictures of interesting things I see in stores.
Who knew it would be the death of Glob?
*snerk*
Skeptic about what? evolution? Glob the jury has been in for ages evolution is a fact! It's not something to believe in or not believe in you may as well say your skeptical about the Earth orbiting the Sun, you will be taken just as seriously.
It's what you get for being sir snide!
Ha! open minded? OPEN MINDED?? You sure take the cake!
It is truly great to see the end of you sir snide, bout time you took the hint hope you have fun continuing to believe in fairies and ghosts we'll stick to reality thanks.
Johnny, science doesn't require a jury, or are you too closed minded to understand you god, scienc?
Fiery, you don't know me, you don't know what I have looked at in myself. I have been open minded enough to believe you when you said you have. I am sorry you couldn't do the same, or is it your close minded view that can't accept even the possibility that you are wrong. Even Dawkins, your high priest, admits life's origin is unexplainable.
I found this site and, openmindedly, listened and opined (sometimes a bit snotty). I was hoping to understand. However, all I found was angst, bitterness, and a total lack of tolerance for any dissent. But I guess that is the current definition of tolerance.
I have tried to smash all of your delusion that there is no consequence for having a lack of belief in any god. But, you can't admit that not believing in a god even has a consequence, talk about a delusion, unless it is a total lie.
As far as skeptics, I am the only skeptic here. Without me, all you have is a bunch of idiots and a few sparks of light, Richard, Fiery for the most part, patting yourselves on the back. When you have a bunch of skeptics together, there are no skeptics. So have fun with your little love fest.
Reg...to an atheist, not believing in any god HAS no consequences.
If there is a god....Yahweh, Zeus, whomever...and he exempts penalty for non-belief then after I die I'll pay the penalty for not believing. If there isn't any god, I pay no penalty. If I believe in the WRONG god...what's the penalty? Only Yahweh seems to put a penalty on non-believers in him. Never read in any other mythology (yes, I consider the Bible a mythology too) that the god(s) punished people for unbelief. They may have meted out capricious punishments for other reasons (Prometheus on the rock comes to mind), but not for unbelief. (If there is an example, please let me know.)
Your concern for our souls is only useful if Yahweh is the real god. I respect that you believe he is. You need to respect that we don't believe he is, that there isn't ANY god.
I do consider myself a skeptic. Prove things to us.
Evolution has nothing to do with Life's Origin. Dawkins admits that. Everyone who believes in evolution admits that. We aren't sure how life started. We are looking for proofs. We have some ideas and are testing them. If we find we are wrong, we'll try another hypothesis. But just saying "god did it" won't satisfy us. We want to try and PROVE how it happened. Then we will believe how life started, just like we belive evolution works.
See all that shite you've just written is so typical of you glob, oh boo hoo I am the one who has been open minded I am the one one who has been reasonable only I am the skeptic here, you are full of shit. See how you term things in the way of a typical zealot, "I have tried to smash your delusion that there is no consequence of not believing in god", absolute fucking rubbish huh what is the consequence? Terms like your high priest dawkins, what fucking rot! All he is is an evolutionary biologist glob is that so hard to grasp!
If you don't want to believe in facts glob that is your business frankly I couldn't give a rats toss bag what you want to believe that is entirely your business, in fact glob I respect the fact that you are allowed to believe whatever you like (does not mean that I have to respect the belief itself) but when you come here uninvited and start bandying about your shite then of course we are going to tell you that you're wrong when you are. If you'll remember there where times when the talk turned to other matters and people actually agreed with you but the question of whether evolution is true is just simply not up for discussion IT IS A FACT FULLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, now if you want to talk about the exact mechanisms and the nitty gritty then sure there is room for discussion there. If you want to flat out deny then you are an ignorant fool whao has wasted all his time by reading the made up bible.
You keep banging on about lifes origins and by the way dawkins does not say lifes origins are unexplainable at all, unexplainable means it can't be explained, and that is your entire problem you are ill informed, like so many of you anti science freaks you loosly grasp the concepts but not the underlying facts and this is what you need to understand.
"Sometimes a bit snotty" what are you driveling about the way you phrase your so called understanding has always been more than snotty it has been downright backhanded even this your supposed last post (although I thought your post before that was your last!) is dripping with contempt and it has never been far from the surface with you has it, we are not idiots and nor are we fools now are you going to fuck off or what?
maggie,
You forgot one possibility, that you are right. However, I am referring to the FACT that there is a consequence to your unbelief. Your lack of belief can only lead to one possible scenario. IT IS ALL ABOUT YOU. If you want to continue the delusion that lack of belief has no consequence, go for it.
And while you may respect me, no one else does. That is the closed mindedness I am talking about. Maggie, go back and read some of the old posts, I am the village idiot to these people and I am fine with that. But they are the ones who claim to be opened minded, a fact that is clearly wrong.
I can't prove the origin of life and neither can you. So who is wrong? I am skeptical of your claim, you are skeptical of mine. But the day I leave this site all skepticism will end. It will be fiery and her "yes" men.
You said...
"We want to try and PROVE how it happened. Then we will believe how life started, just like we belive evolution works."
You have already ruled out any kind of intelligence, your supposition is that it "happened" implying that it was chance or nature or whatever fancy word you want to use. The reality is that you already have your mind made up (just like me by the way) which is the farthest think from skeptisism. Deal with that.
Johnny,
You are a simpleton. The consequence of lack of belief in god is that you now are only left with evolution. Whatever the current theory is. That is the consequence. You always try to leave your lack of belief sitting there like a lump of clay when in reality that clay has to bring forth life all by itself. Delusion.
But do on patting each other on the back, pretend that everyone who ever came the the conclusion that there is a god is stupid, go on, enjoy.
I think my eyes just rolled out the back of my head.
The consequence of lack of belief in god is that you now are only left with evolution. Simpleton? I tell you what glob I am in with a good crowd then if you think I am a simpleton for believing in abiogenesis
You continue to get evolution mixed up with abiogenisis as I stated before your problem is that you losely grasp(in the case of abiogenisis extremely loosely and erroniously bind it with evolution) concepts
oh they're saying life all of a sudden started from nothing, no we are not saying that at all life at it's most basic level is simply the replication of ordered comlex molecules. It is hardly all of a sudden it took over 1000 million years before life first started on Earth.
Now which consequence is it glob? That we are only left with evolution (sic) or that it is all about the individual? Or have you got a different consequence for each of us? I can't wait to here what Fiery's is ooohh and I wonder what Richard's is?
It is all about us glob, frankly what you are implying is disgusting and that is why you struggle to garner respect. I care about a lot of people more than I care about myself and really why would we even need a god for empathy? Why? It is such a ridiculous notion bah to you! You still just have not learned a thing from all your "openmindedness" have you. Believing in god does not equal selflessness anymore than being an atheist does.
A person HAS to tie evolution with some type of origin. That is a fact. And however you want to define life is of no consequence to reality.
Now as to your "good crowd", I am also in a good crowd, and a helk of a lot bigger crowd. Your simple logic won't allow me to claim that religion is a valid option simply because of the vast number of people who believe it. You on the other hand keep throwing out the idea of "crowd" and "jury", you have two post in this particular discussion and both of them refer to your consensus. You are the definition of a simpleton. Too bad you can't think for yourself.
Maggie Rosenthorn wrote:
"If there is a god..."
She appears to be agnostic as opposed to atheist. Technically speaking agnostics sit on the fence, hoping to get off on the safe side, but unable to settle on which it is.
Maggie there cannot be a God, b/c the supernatural cannot live apart from the Universe (everything there is) let alone create it. Nor can he make himself, because if there is Nothing, nothing can be done with it. The Universe, and its fundamental units of matter (whatever they are) is eternal, timeless. Time and space exist only *in* the Universe, and cannot exist outside of it because there is no outside (so there is nowhere 'else' God could be).
Maggie, your life is yours, look after it wisely. After the use of your own mind and the actions it produces in your body, nothing but other people and a bit of luck will keep you alive and happy. That is absolutely wonderful, because it IS all about you, understandable natural laws and your choices, not some damned witch doctor or some unfathomable capricious super Being yanking your chain.
blog-geR::Reg-Golb wrote this to you, Maggie:
"Your lack of belief can only lead to one possible scenario. IT IS ALL ABOUT YOU."
That is exactly how it should be, but done rationally that means properly recognizing one's values. That in turn means recognizing valuable family from useless family, valuable friends from uncertain acquaintances, valuable businessmen from troublesome ones and treating them all proportionately. Ultimately every organism lives for itself or suffers for failing to correctly do so ... and that applies to people too.
Glob, an open mind is not an open garbage can. You have spewed arguments that your once-open garbage can has thoughtlessly accepted, but you then fastened down the lid! Closed for business! That business is understanding You & the Universe where you live.
Having done that you have utterly failed to respond to any of the better arguments here that clearly challenge your beliefs. That is, you have deliberately evaded them, which is dishonest in itself(isn't dishonesty un-Christian?), and makes your claim of having an open mind equally dishonest. On the other hand we have addressed your arguments, often at length. So who is close-minded?
A good example is your crushingly stupid notion (given that it has been discussed before your face) that life on earth just happened by "chance". I took the time here to explain how it is a natural mechanism, and one that operated prior to any particular structures evolved that could be called life. No 'Intelligent Design' is required. The origin of life is no more a matter of "chance" than is falling when there is gravity. That mechanism is called Natural Selection... and that mechanism is completely beyond doubt. Natural Selection also causes speciation, and hence Darwinian Evolution. It is Mechanism, not chance.
No we do not know the particulars of the spedific molecules involved, since they are most likely beyond the reach of the paleontological record, and are too minuscule to survive 4.5 billion years in any recognizable form. However, that mechanism is VASTLY more likely than something from outside the Universe saying "Let there be light" and 'bing' there is light... no sun, or stars, just 'light'.
As Ellen DeGeneris put it:
"There was still nothing, but you could see it a whole lot better."
The Bahble and belief in gods are just a crock of shit, Glob, and you have fallen for it like old ladies being scammed by con artists.
I should add that Maggie has not made up her mind in the same way or manner that you have! In fact, as an agnostic, she is still thinking.
People can make up their minds rationally, on the basis of legitimate evidence, or by mindlessly accepting bullshit. "Making up one's mind" may be the phrase applied to the two approaches, but the only legitimate approach is with evidence and reason. By contrast you, Glob, like all Fundies, make up your mind with no evidence or reason, and in so doing render your mind less useful than your asshole.
Like I said Richard is intelligent and apparently the only one honest enough to admit the consequence of atheism.
Richard can't even bring himself to say Johnny is right about his jury and his crowd. At least Richard won't be Fiery's yes man.
By the way, Fiery must also be agnostic. She said that if God showed up at her door she would kick him in the groin. As if that would hurt him, she already killed his only son.
Glob: You context screwing, useless, snide, trolling, waste of proteins.
Fiery: I think it's clear what needs to be done.
Glob-The-Village-idiot-
who-has-left-his-final-goodbye-
post-3-times-in-the-last-
24-hours:
WTF consequences of atheism are you talking about? I have tried to smash all of your delusion that there is no consequence for having a lack of belief in any god. But, you can't admit that not believing in a god even has a consequence, talk about a delusion, unless it is a total lie.
Do you even read the drivel you write? You're not making any points to respond to.
Of course there are consequences to being an atheist. Just not eternal ones. I don't have to go to church. I don't have to pray to anybody. I'm not afraid of burning in hell.
My life. My responsibility.
And the whole kick god in the nuts. Go find that quote and read the whole context you cock knuckle. Once again you're picking at phrases and not reading or understanding what has been said.
Protium wants me to tell you to fuck off. You've promised to leave 3 times today.
Address issues or avail yourself of the little red X and take your snide remarks and tip the fuck out the door.
GLOB SAID:
"By the way, Fiery must also be agnostic. She said that if God showed up at her door she would kick him in the groin. As if that would hurt him, she already killed his only son."
Its all in YOUR head glob, I think its time you moved on, spewing all this religious crap on an Atheists blog doesnt mean a thing to the rest of us. We're all freethinkers here, no big boogie man rules our lives.
We all know you'll still be lurking around because you wont be able to resist seeing what is happening next with the freethinkers.
Just get on with your closed minded life and dont ask too many hard questions of yourself, your head might explode!
Goodbye and good luck with your search for a life with religious meaning glob, you'll need a lot of luck to keep fooling yourself lol!
blog-geR, what the heck to you mean by admit the consequence of atheism? If you mean the idea of selfishness, then absolutely! Unselfishness is an abhorrently immoral approach to ethics.
One of the things that is infuriating about religionists is their view that morality IS altruism. This is a fallacy that Rand viewed as a "Frozen Abstraction". Rather than grasping that there are other approaches to an idea or context, the mind that 'freezes' becomes fixated on a particular element of an abstraction that is more complex than they are willing to face. Rather than grasping the full meaning of the idea, they become fixated on one element as if it was the only *kind*.
Imagine thinking a dog is a Black Labrador Retriever, and refusing to accept that a Border Collie might also be a dog too. The man with the Frozen Abstraction can only accept that dog's retrieve ducks or pheasants, and rejects the entire notion that sheep herding by Border Collies might have anything to do with dogs. They simply blank out the full meaning of dog, except when it is the Retriever. Well, Selfishness is a form of morality, just as Border Collies are a kind of dog. Now, work with selfishness. What does selfishness really do for a man's life? Since morality is a code of choices and actions one takes to guide one through life, imagine if the ONLY code was self-sacrifice! The human race would have become extinct tens of thousands of years ago. Border Collies are dogs and (rational) Selfishness is a kind of morality --the only valid kind.
In effect, morality, which subsumes more than one view becomes, in their Frozen minds, synonymous with THEIR morality. In this case, with altruism (i.e. with self sacrifice, whether to other Men, or to newts, spotted owls, baby seals, fur, and ancient trees).
Morality also includes selfishness. That selfishness can be irrational or rational.
I am an unabashed advocate of rational selfishness.
As for Fiery talking about God showing up at her door, she is allowing, for the moment, the notion that God is real, for the sole sake of making the point that she would kick him in the groin. That is not an agnostic position, it is a position of argument. The two differ!
Wait! Did I not just speak of failure to understand the difference between Maggie's approach to an idea and Reg's? The same kind of difference lies between Maggie's (apparent) agnosticism and Fiery's momentary USE of God for argument. Fiery is an atheist making a point about the nature of your god, Maggie is fence-sitting (unless she wishes to clarify her position).
You see Reg, your mind is pooched... a Dog's Breakfast of confusion. Seriously, and without rancor, your thinking is a mess.
As for the "jury" thing, the facts exist apart from any human contrivance or belief. Facts are "out in reality", and if we grasp them correctly then we have the Truth. Where the facts of nature speak for themselves, it is just a matter of the human mind grasping them.
In contrast, a jury weighs the facts available to decide the moral and legal nature of a man's actions. Truth is a matter of fact, and legal decisions strive to be a matter of fact. In a trial, the "jury" exists to evaluate facts. They do the best they can with what they have. However, if doubt remains, unlike you, they must disregard the guilty verdict and let the accused go free. This differs from proving a truth. With some ideas scientists must continue questioning. Then, when the evidence is incontrovertible they (should) accept the evidence as proof of a new fact of nature, and therefore, as truth. The two processes are distinctly different. I wish Al -consensus- Gore understood the difference.
Evolution is a Truth. So, I accept Johnny's position on Evolution because the evidence is in. However, I do so on my own terms, not on Johnny's. I do it on the basis of facts that neither you nor Johnny can alter or deny. You may fail to reach the same conclusion as Johnny and I, by evading the meaning of those facts, but we choose to face them for what they are.
The forgoing applies to both Evolution and the existence of some magical God-Being. The former is absolute, the latter is the ravings of nomadic shepherds sustained over two millennia by men who are unable to distinguish fairy tales from reality.
Hey I know, lets have Fiery, Protium and Richard put up comments trashing Glob at the same time, give or take three minutes!
Oh, that just happened!
:-)
Damn, I meant TTEyes, and typed Protium, sorry TTEyes!
No worries Richard, you could say we're joined at the hip :)
My trashing of glob was a quick off the cuff affair, whereas yours was bloody marvellous, hot diggity brilliant and dog dammn it I wish glob would read and absorb all your answers, they are all filled with such rational and logical explanations, thanks for the time you put into it Richard!!!
Fiery,
Your post was equally as fantastic, you telling glob where to go...woo hoo good on you, who needs a knuckle dragger spouting his crap all the time, not to mention that he doesnt listen to anything anyone says....totally a lost cause!
On a lighter note...yay only 40 days to go lol xx
woooops....39 days, even better honey xx
Like I said Richard is intelligent and apparently the only one honest enough to admit the consequence of atheism.
You are indeed obtuse glob
That is exactly how it should be, but done rationally that means properly recognizing one's values. That in turn means recognizing valuable family from useless family, valuable friends from uncertain acquaintances, valuable businessmen from troublesome ones and treating them all proportionately. Ultimately every organism lives for itself or suffers for failing to correctly do so ... and that applies to people too.
Did you even read that glob? Do you even understand what that means Glob.
Your implication of selfishness is that under all circumstances an atheist will fuck everybody else over for themselves, and that is what I am replying to and that is not what Richard is saying.
Selfishness is doing right by one's self if that person has decent morals then that means in certain circumstances they will behave selflessly in respect to certain others, do you honestly believe that in a situation where Richard had to choose himself over his childred he would choose himself? I don't think so (maybe I'm wrong only Rich knows).
Going to a war torn country and risking your life for complete strangers because it's the selfless christian thing to do is stupid, donating a kidney to a complete stranger because it's the christian thing to do is stupid, donating money to someone when you can't afford it but it is the christian thing to do is stupid. People who do the christian thing are non thinking drones.
The jury is in is a phrase glob look at how you scramble and fuss over the tiny non important remarks to try and point score which you don't even do, same with thinking Fiery must be agnostic, you prised idiot! Turns of phrase don't mean anything, saying oh my god doesn't mean you believe in god anymore than saying the jury is in means that 12 people went into a room and decided that evolution was true! It is a phrase meaning something is true nothing more nothing less.
Johnny wrote:
"Selfishness is doing right by one's self if that person has decent morals then that means in certain circumstances they will behave selflessly in respect to certain others, do you honestly believe that in a situation where Richard had to choose himself over his childred [aic]he would choose himself? I don't think so (maybe I'm wrong only Rich knows).
"
Of course I would choose my children first, but Johnny makes a common error with respect to that action being selfless!
When I do something for my kids, even if I know it will result in my death, my choice is full blown selfishness!! It is no sacrifice.
Any parent who just stands and watches, as their child plays on a railroad track seconds before the train smashes her to bits, is not selfish. That parent is watching one of his highest values be destroyed and is doing nothing about it. For the rest of his life he will know that he stood by and let that wonderful child be reduced to road kill. (I felt the same way about a woman once.) Imagine having such a memory about that as a reminder of the nature of your character, forever!
Here is another example of selflessness. A young man of some twenty years of age was severely beaten by a gang at a Toronto subway station. They did not even know him, and beat him up just for kicks. Shortly after he regained consciousness in a hospital he was interviewed by a reporter. He said he wanted Torontonians to know that, as a Christian, he loved his attackers as much as he loved his mother and girlfriend. Basically he is saying that all the good within his mother and girlfriend was of the same value to him as the evil in the scum who ganged up on him and nearly killed him. Nice!
And another:
In China, a man was lauded as a national! hero. He had returned home one night to discover that the building he shared with another family was in flames. He rushed into the other family's home first, rescuing them one by one, even as he knew his own family was burning to death. He left his own family to die in flames!! That is selflessness, and the reason the communists considered him to be a hero.
(Johnny, unless it is a typo, "prised" or "prized" means to pry an object off or out of something using some sort of tool. Probably you just meant "prize idiot".)
pssst!! Richard... Nobody is correcting your typos. Put down the red pen so a person has a chance to respond to what you've written instead of throwing wads of paper when you turn back to the chalk board.
Oh! And Glob! Take a look at this. Two atheists quibbling over a point. I bet they are both rational enough to come to some sort of understanding about the point each was trying to make.
Fiery, re: Johnny's "prised"
If I was sure it was just a typo I wouldn't have said anything... look at all the typos in his comment that I did NOT comment on.
I wondered if he was using some vernacular term with a meaning I did not know. When I looked it up at dictionary.com nothing helped me on that. Did Johnny mean something more, that I was missing, or was it really just a typo?
I can see that I should have worded my parenthetical note to Johnny more in the terms I provided above.
AWWWwwwwwwwwwww
well ok then! :)
Selfishness is doing right by one's self if that person has decent morals then that means in certain circumstances they will behave selflessly in respect to certain others
I am not in error, here selflessly strictly means without regard to ones personal safety or wellbeing not more nor less.
Any parent who just stands and watches, as their child plays on a railroad track seconds before the train smashes her to bits, is not selfish. That parent is watching one of his highest values be destroyed and is doing nothing about it. For the rest of his life he will know that he stood by and let that wonderful child be reduced to road kill. (I felt the same way about a woman once.) Imagine having such a memory about that as a reminder of the nature of your character, forever!
A somewhat interesting way to phrase that Richard, probably not intuitive to most including me and possibly not the whole story, when love is involved reasoning becomes a little murky. I would concur that the afterthought of shame is certainly a big motivating factor, again most would baulk at saying that, I did at first when I was thinking it, but when all thoughts are reduced it seems to be. I considered a situation where my child was killed and I could do nothing about it, I would obviously be totally devestated then I thought how would it be different if the same thing happened and I had the opportunity to save her with my life or by my actions and I did not.The difference would be a memory about that as a reminder of the nature of your character, forever!.
Intuitively most would just say I would do it because I love them and do it and know nothing because they would be dead.
I am glad you did put it in such a clinical manner though because it has made think a little deeper on the subject and specifically about most human motivation and in particular christian sacrifice which ultimately is as selfish any other persons motivation to do things. Why does a fundy committ act of self sacrifice? Ultimately because either they think by doing so they will go to heaven -selfish, or because they are told to by god, same outcome. Which I suppose ultimately shows up their "higher" morals as being bogus now doesn't it?
Hahahaha prised was a typo of sorts, I am not sure what I intended to put I knew that prised meant to jimmy using a jimmy although I would say to jemmy using a jemmy wouldn't I Fiery seeing as we specifically discussed this earlier on, even looked up respective dictionaries of course mine being the trusted Maquarrie Australian Dictionary. Having said that prized as opposed to prised here is sometimes used as in -this is coppied from a website about historical homebuilding- Passive Solar Heating Roofing is lightweight, high insulation thatch of reeds grown on site (estimated R3.0 or better is carried to site from Kathmandu by Sherpas and fitted into frames hand sawn on site from highly prized local timber. Sometimes it is used in terms of something having being given a prize as in a prized wine but usually, like this example, it means highly sought after. If you want to find it anywhere you need to type "prized aussie vernacular" into google and I think it probably has to be the australian google page ie: google.com.au
What I was really concerned about was not using a z, I find them deplorable when exchanged for the English s being brought up using Australian english which is very akin to English english or as my mum would have it, the queens english. Oh by the way whenever I use the letter z you have to read it as zed never ever zee MWWWWWWWWWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hey hey hey now go easy there aren't that many typos are there?>:| and I don't count bad grammar as being a typo!
Hi, Richard. I was away all last night so missed your comments until today. Guess I worded my statements poorly. I am more atheist than agnostic (a 5 or 6 on Dawkins' scale in The God Delusion). But I tried to explain to Reg that I don't see the consequences the way he does, and tried to re-word Occam's Razor to show him how I don't believe, but IF I am wrong (and yes, I will accept that as a very FAINT possibility) then I will accept and cope with any consequences. Personally, I don't believe in any god(s), and believe that when we are dead, we are dead (except in the memories of those who love us). No heaven, no hell, no purgatory ...actually makes me a little sad; ;-) (I love Dante's Divine Comedy, it's nice poetry in many of the translations. I don't read Italian)
Its funny how interesting, convivial and enjoyable the conversation has become since blogknob has left the building along with his snide and derogatory remarks, I say good riddance and hope he never darkens your doorstep (well virtual doorstep) again Fiery, 3 cheers everyone!! :-)
Just realized I meant Pascal's Wager and not Occam's Razor in my last comment. I need to go to bed, my brain isn't functioning.
Hi Johnny, nice comment :-D
The leading advocates of altruism are perhaps more evil than most people care to imagine. However, even in small doses it is still a poison. That is why I commented as I did. Immanuel Kant is one of the most revered philosophers of them all. His ideas, and those of other philosophers who have run with his ideas (thru Hegel, then Marx), have dominated academia and support religious altruism (which was a major part of Kant's purpose).
This is from Kant (emphasis is mine):
"An action is moral, said Kant, only if one has no desire to perform it, but performs it out of a sense of duty and derives no benefit from it of any sort, neither material nor spiritual; a benefit destroys the moral value of an action."
Elsewhere he expands on what he means by "no benefit". This, adjusted quotation is from the Ayn Rand Lexicon:
"The arch-advocate of 'duty' is Immanuel Kant; he went so much farther than other theorists that they seem innocently benevolent by comparison. "Duty," he holds, is the only standard of virtue; but virtue is not its own reward: if a reward is involved, it is no longer virtue. The only moral motivation, he holds, is devotion to duty for duty's sake; only an action motivated exclusively by such devotion is a moral action (i.e., an action performed without any concern for "inclination" [desire] or self-interest)."
So, according to Kant, even Christians are not really altruistic if their self sacrifice is performed in the hope of reaching Heaven.
Because the above is the full meaning of altruism and self sacrifice, it is the distinction that I think must be made between real selfless acts and selfish acts. Saving your children from a burning building, even if you die trying, is a selfish act.
Christians work toward Kantian selflessness as their ideal, and interpret most acts on those terms. The same is true of Communists, hence the Chinaman who rescued the other family as his own died. Of course, no one can live very long if they were to fully pursue such a moral code... they must die. Those who accept that morality therefore live a life of guilt and confusion (in the face of such an appalling contradiction). But Kant and religion throw in the despicable caveat that you must stay alive just enough to continue sacrificing yourself, out of duty to others or to God (by serving others).
If that is not enough, consider the evil in this:
"It is a duty to preserve one's life, and moreover everyone has a direct inclination to do so. But for that reason the often anxious care which most men take of it has no intrinsic worth, and the maxim of doing so has no moral import. They preserve their lives according to duty, but not from duty. But if adversities and hopeless sorrow completely take away the relish for life, if an unfortunate man, strong in soul, is indignant rather than despondent or dejected over his fate and wishes for death, and yet preserves his life without loving it and from neither inclination nor fear but from duty—then his maxim has a moral import" (Immanuel Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, ed. R. P. Wolff, New York, Bobbs-Merrill, 1969, pp. 16–17).
So the lower and more awful these 'others' are, that we must live for, the better --which is why we see Mother Theresa, eager ministers 'converting' murderers on death row. The same phenomenon, carefully unnamed, brings the Western World & United Nations to sympathize with terrorist Palestinians over peaceful Israelis or the IOC choosing communist dictatorships for the Olympics. .
The morality of altruism stems from believing that the Universe is a figment of some God's imagination (Metaphysics) and that knowledge is only a function of what that God expects of you (Epistemology). The Communists/Socialists (proper term is Collectivists) substitute collective humanity for God and accept the same morality (a Collective is not *a* thing or entity any more than is God, in this context) Note that both systems can then justify the murdering of those who disagree with them, by the million, because they are a rebuke to the 'greater good' (god)!!
Over the last 50 years a new 'god' is the Environment, and men must sacrifice to newts, spotted owls, old trees and rocks --yes rocks, which I have mentioned elsewhere on the AtheistHomeschooler Blog! Those who refuse, however scientifically and factually, to support massive economic and technological changes to 'help' reduce the human "carbon footprint" are evil "deniers" unwilling to join the moral high ground of sacrificing his lifestyle "for the planet". Environmentalists have attacked them and have killed a few, with the same kind of justification as religionists and collectivists. Leading environmentalists have called for imprisonment of deniers, and have attempted to use their political positions to ban scientific literature that contradicts environmentalists' conclusions about global warming.
Altruism is by far the World's dominant moral system and, for most people, moral belief (read: altruism) trumps reason and science,
All the quoted materials are from this web page (which in turn is from several books).
The letter "Zed" has its uses. The homonyms, prized and prised, share the same phoneme but are distinguished by context and spelling Z and S.
I always thought 'Zee' was used because it rhymed easily in children's poems. Then of course it caught on as a name for the letter.
Pascal's wager:
-the argument put forth by Blaise Pascal that it is in one's best interest to believe in the existence of God, as it is a rational assumption and does no harm, and the possibility of eternal punishment in hell outweighs any advantage of believing otherwise.
I think Blaise's wager is wrongheaded:
1. God is not, in any way a rational assumption (well explained elsewhere on this blog).
2. Eternal punishment in Hell is not, in any way a rational assumption.
3. To remain uncertain on an arbitrary proposition is to allow one's mind to avoid clarity of thought. If it allows itself one such weakness, how many more can be allowed? What will such a mind do with the next appealing, arbitrary proposition?
Remaining uncertain on matters of importance is a concession to unreason, a purposefully permitted crack in one's mental faculty... and for what? Is it to seem to be 'nice' to others on some topic? Is it out of unending distrust of one;s own judgment. Is it distrust of the laws of the Universe. Is it distrust of one's senses? Every one of those 'reasons' is a kind of doubt, a crack in the edifice that is the content of one's mind. The crack allows the unreal, the arbitrary, to gain traction in one's mind. In some ways the agnostic is more evil than the committed religionist. Where the religionist is willing to stand or fall on their belief, the agnostic perennially waffles in a fuzzy purgatory of their own making, between reason and unreason, between life and death.
It is that crack of uncertainty is what religionists seek to create or widen. They put their children in Sunday School to ensure such cracks form in the very foundation of each childs developing 'edifice'. (Public schools do it too, but in a different way.) Since so much of a child's valid knowledge comes from others, very few five year olds are equiped to recognize the arbitrary should it be slipped in too.
Ayn Rand's definition of honesty is "the recognition that the unreal IS unreal". That is a brilliant description of honesty, because it shows that the purpose of the properly functioning mind is to accept only what is real, and no more. By that definition, it is clear how religionists are fundamentally dishonest. That dishonesty takes place when they accept that first 'crack'. Then, over time, they comparmentalize their knowledge of having allowed that crack, hiding from its occurrence until it is fully forgotten. They will be indignant if someone suggests they are dishonest. But the crack remains and so does the intellectual approach that permitted it. Their 'edifice' of knowledge is weakened until the next appealing, arbitrary proposition prompts them. What is ultimately a wishful, emotion driven, whim ("No heaven, no hell, no purgatory ...actually makes me a little sad"), is permitted by that dishonest approach, widening the crack or causing a new crack, and reinforcing belief that the approach is acceptable.
Of course, it would be unjust to morally condemn someone who is honestly working through their knowledge, but nor is it moral for them to allow matters, of legitimate concern to them, to languish. To do so would be unselfish!
"When I do something for my kids, even if I know it will result in my death, my choice is full blown selfishness!! It is no sacrifice."
Thank Richie, sounds familiar, but apparently simpleton can't understand unless you paint a picture for him.
Maggie
"then I will accept and cope with any consequences." How very generous of you, as if you would have a choice.
Fuck you Glob you worthless piece of sputum.
Get off my blog and stay off.
Reg, that was shallower than sweat on a cold, dry day.
Thanks for proving my point about cracks in the edifice of knowledge and understanding.
What you think is your mental 'edifice' is apparently nothing more than a heap of broken bricks, proudly gleaned from other broken buildings.
Reg, the lady has spoken. Please be a gentleman (that is if you know how) and leave and don't bother coming back.
Ban the Fuckwit!
"the recognition that the unreal IS unreal"
I seriously doubt glob has ever considered this, so it reveals his lack of honesty to himself.
"Of course, it would be unjust to morally condemn someone who is honestly working through their knowledge"
His lack of honesty invites condemnation, which can be justified by his ability to continually ignore everything anyone says, and his seeming inability to believe that anyone else has anything of import to say.
Once again Richard has offered so much rational information, amazingly easy to understand and offered in such a way that invites a strong desire to learn more.
Could the internally dishonest glob ever seriously study these words and really and truly get something out of all this?
No, I believe he cant because he is determined to stay hidden behind...
"What you think is your mental 'edifice' is apparently nothing more than a heap of broken bricks, proudly gleaned from other broken buildings."
...he is forever doomed to lurk in amongst the bricks only ever peeping out to quickly yell snide unintelligent comments before slithering back amongst the bricks.
Goodbye globlet, no one wants you here monkey boy, by your own hand you're now forced to lurk in the background with no voice.
Gosh TTEyes, thank you so much for your kind remarks [blushes, and turns quiet].
"Of course, it would be unjust to morally condemn someone who is honestly working through their knowledge."
Some of us may remember that, that was how I began with Reg, because he periodically came up with some interesting comments that spurred further discussion. It is clearly no longer Just to grant him any such opening to be honest.
That remark was largely intended for Fiery's gentle new arrival, Maggie Rosethorn. My comments regarding agnosticism might seem harsh to her, but were in no way intended to hurt her feelings.
Sometimes it is difficult to divorce established thoughts from the feelings they engender. The consequence is that a challenge to those thoughts amounts to a spear into the heart of those feelings.
The pain of the spear can be felt so severely that it blocks one's ability to examine the most honest challenge to the very thoughts that causes those feelings.
Resisting that pain, for the greater value that is clear understanding, can be a terrific challenge. However, the more often it is exercised the easier it becomes, until one would never want it any other way. Such is the nature of human volition applied to one's own conceptual faculty.
Post a Comment