Atheism

@argome321,

Quote:

I wouldn't classify emotions as higher instincts. Animals have emotions.

Then animals are a higher development on the evolutionary tree like us . How does that contradict anything ?

Quote:

Emotions are just what they are: motivating forces.

Are you saying emotions are totally separate from instincts ? They live in the same organism, they must be connected . What is the connection ?

Quote:

If fear (being the emotion) and ignorance caused us to invent religion as a coping mechanism that makes more sense to me.

I see it as a gradual start . Someone made an observation, of the natural world or the human body, and applied it . Others came to them for treatment, answers, and they saw the opportunity this presented . The Priest/Doctor began . I dont think fear and ignorance invent anything . This invention was born out of spare time .

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I'll let others judge that, **** for brains, as I have a very low opinion of you .

0 Replies

Your opinion of me is immaterial, and it couldn't be any lower than the contempt in which i hold you. You consistently make statements from authority for which you provide no substantiation. There is no reason for anyone to take such idiotic pronouncements seriously. This all goes back to the day when you alleged, as always without substantiation, that there is abundant evidence for the existence of your boy Jeebus. I said that that's bullshit, and you have been puking up your hysterical hatred ever since. You really can't handle strong contradiction, which is why you default to the name-calling and the continuous insults. It's only a matter of time before you start laying into Argome, who has the temerity to contradict you.

3 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Your opinion of me is immaterial, and it couldn't be any lower than the contempt in which i hold you. You consistently make statements from authority for which you provide no substantiation. There is no reason for anyone to take such idiotic pronouncements seriously. This all goes back to the day when you alleged, as always without substantiation, that there is abundant evidence for the existence of your boy Jeebus. I said that that's bullshit, and you have been puking up your hysterical hatred ever since. You really can't handle strong contradiction, which is why you default to the name-calling and the continuous insults. It's only a matter of time before you start laying into Argome, who has the temerity to contradict you.

Really looks like you are finally talking about yourself, mate!

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

Then animals are a higher development on the evolutionary tree like us . How does that contradict anything ?

Agreed, but their instincts are highly developed much more so than our own. Domestic cats though tamed never lose their instinctual evolutionary ability to hunt. To hone our survival skills we now depend more on being cunning and better mentally prepared and inventing and developing superior weapons.

Quote:

Are you saying emotions are totally separate from instincts ? They live in the same organism, they must be connected . What is the connection ?

Emotion is what moves us. Organism want to survive by fueling our selves and propagating. Emotions moves us in that direction. Instinct is one of the tools provided by nature to achieve those goals.

Love as an emotion can be said to helps bind us to our clans for protection, nurture and helps fulfill our social needs. In humans it seems even more important because our growth years take longer than other animals

Quote:

I see it as a gradual start . Someone made an observation, of the natural world or the human body, and applied it . Others came to them for treatment, answers, and they saw the opportunity this presented . The Priest/Doctor began . I dont think fear and ignorance invent anything . This invention was born out of spare time .

Gradual start or not, it is still a human construct from the mind of man
-thus leaving man to drop it or continue it. He has the option.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

I don't see how adding the "belief" "disguises" anything, as you seem to perceive.

Okay. I understand that you do not.

If you consider the following two sentences...and think about the ramifications of any difference you see...it might help to understand my position.

1) "I believe there is a GOD; that the GOD tells us what pleases and offends...and I want everyone to respect my "beliefs"...and the "beliefs" of everyone else who has "beliefs."

2) "It is my blind guess that there is a GOD...and my further blind guess that the GOD has revealed what pleases and offends it...and I want everyone to respect my blind guesses...and the blind guesses of everyone else who has blind guesses.

Don't fret if you do not see my point...or if you see it but consider it unsubstantial and not worthy of serious consideration. Nobody here in A2K seem so disposed.

I consider the difference to be exceedingly important...and will continue to defend it every chance I get.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Point of clarification: Suppose a bookie offers odds of 1:999 that a particular horse will win the race. According to your usage of words:
Is the bookie making a guess?
Do you agree or disagree with the proposition, "the bookie doesn't believe that the horse will win"?
Do you think the proposition in #2 disguises that the bookie is making a guess?
I'm asking because I don't understand why you seem to think that saying "I believe X" disguises that the speaker is making a guess about X.

I've tried to highlight that this is important when speaking about the existence or non-existence of a GOD.

If a bookie is offering odds of whatever...and he is any kind of decent bookie, his reason is to even odds for betting purposes...putting horses deemed to be better and faster at lower odds than horses deemed to be slower.

But to actually get what I am saying...go back to the question of the existence or non-existence of a GOD.

I am saying that when someone says, "I believe there are no gods"...that person is actually saying "My blind guess is that there are no gods."

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

So you no longer believe in what you just said?

I do not do believing, Izzy...so there is no "no longer" about it.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Okay. I understand that you do not.

If you consider the following two sentences...and think about the ramifications of any difference you see...it might help to understand my position.

Quote:

1) "I believe there is a GOD; that the GOD tells us what pleases and offends...and I want everyone to respect my "beliefs"...and the "beliefs" of everyone else who has "beliefs."

2) "It is my blind guess that there is a GOD...and my further blind guess that the GOD has revealed what pleases and offends it...and I want everyone to respect my blind guesses...and the blind guesses of everyone else who has blind guesses.

Don't fret if you do not see my point...or if you see it but consider it unsubstantial and not worthy of serious consideration. Nobody here in A2K seem so disposed.

I consider the difference to be exceedingly important...and will continue to defend it every chance I get.

Just as an exercise let me try to understand what you are saying. Most likely I will get it wrong but for the fun of it I will try. ok

I would say the first statement using the word believe the person wants to be taken more seriously as if they are really saying they know god exist and you should have the same degree of certainty as me.

The second statement is more casual and has a take it or leave it air to it.
Well Frank, am I close or 180 degrees travelling in the opposite direction?

1 Reply

@argome321,

argome321 wrote:

Okay. I understand that you do not.

If you consider the following two sentences...and think about the ramifications of any difference you see...it might help to understand my position.

Quote:
1) "I believe there is a GOD; that the GOD tells us what pleases and offends...and I want everyone to respect my "beliefs"...and the "beliefs" of everyone else who has "beliefs."

2) "It is my blind guess that there is a GOD...and my further blind guess that the GOD has revealed what pleases and offends it...and I want everyone to respect my blind guesses...and the blind guesses of everyone else who has blind guesses.

Don't fret if you do not see my point...or if you see it but consider it unsubstantial and not worthy of serious consideration. Nobody here in A2K seem so disposed.

I consider the difference to be exceedingly important...and will continue to defend it every chance I get.

Just as an exercise let me try to understand what you are saying. Most likely I will get it wrong but for the fun of it I will try. ok

I would say the first statement using the word believe the person wants to be taken more seriously as if they are really saying they know god exist and you should have the same degree of certainty as me.

The second statement is more casual and has a take it or leave it air to it.
Well Frank, am I close or 180 degrees travelling in the opposite direction?

I do not think you have captured the spirit of things, Argome.

In the first statement, the individual is saying the same thing as in the second statement...but is disguising the fact that he is offering a blind guess by calling it a "belief."

They are both absolutely blind guesses...a blind guess that there is a GOD...and a blind guess that we humans have been informed of what pleases or annoys that GOD. They are purely blind guesses with the exception of the proviso I mentioned earlier.

But the use of "believe" is simply a way of avoiding acknowledging that it is a blind guess.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I do not think you have captured the spirit of things, Argome.

I believed I admitted from the get go.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

as Olivier5 so kindly reminded me

And as you so kindly reminded me earlier...

1 Reply

@argome321,

argome321 wrote:

Quote:
I do not think you have captured the spirit of things, Argome.

I believed I admitted from the get go.

You asked me if you were on the right track...and I attempted to tell you I think you are not...and to give you some idea of why I am saying that.

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

I think our experiences does teach us things including our values and lack there of. I do not exclude our parents.

Ok, if "learning from teachers and books" is considered equal to "learning from experience", you are right. The point is that other people teach us values. i don't see how one could derive any morality from a scientific observation of facts.

Quote:

[Religion] isn't the only means by which morals and ethic are formed. That was what I was trying to point out to Ionus. I wasn't raised with any religious background.

The natural capacity to empathy, selected through evolution, is probably the basis for all morality. Historically, i believe religions took that natural basis and built upon it, codified it, extended it, etc. Whether or not your parents and you were religious is irrelevant to this (theorized) historic origin of moral values. It's easy to teach to a kid "thou shall not steal your sister's toys" without mentioning the Bible.

Quote:

Sometimes good guys do win.

Yes. All it takes for that to happen is a critical mass of good people believing that justice can prevail, and fighting for it. Sometimes our beliefs create a new collective reality this way. That's why it's important to believe in some 'illusions', such as human rights, justice, or paper money.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

You asked me if you were on the right track...and I attempted to tell you I think you are not...and to give you some idea of why I am saying that.

t
Yeah, I know, no problem.

I was just being flippant.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Yes. All it takes for that to happen is a critical mass of good people believing that justice can prevail, and fighting for it. Sometimes our beliefs create a new collective reality this way. That's why it's important to believe in some 'illusions', such as human rights, justice, or paper money.

I don't see money as an illusion if I understand you correctly.
I know money is a means to barter for services and goods.
I believe in human kind. Perhaps you might consider that an illusion.

But I take life for what it is worth. I see life as complicated and simple. I see evil and good, right and wrong, left and right and accept that. I see hope and despair. I don't need false hope and illusions to make it through the day. I know some day I'm going to die. I just try to make the best of what ever situation I happen to find myself in.

Play sports, watch sports. eat, drink, seek friends and good conversation, play music listen to music. etc. You get the picture.
And whatever wrongs and mistakes I made in the past I can only try and do better the next time.

Some times you lose sometimes you win, Live and let live, Life for life sake.

And no matter what others say they are done for my selfish reasons.
I live for my own selfish reason.
Example If I see suffering and I am extremely empathetic to another suffering I may try to prevent it because I can't stand to see another hurt. This is not altruistic on my part. This is done to allay my own empathetic suffering, to save myself. That is how I view it.
I do not need religion to tell me that.

A psychopath who has no empathy may not harm another because he can reason so that bringing harm to another would put him in a position (like being in jail) that he does not want to be in.
He wouldn't need religion to know that.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

No, it goes back to you . You are just one mean son of a bitch . I used to think you were crazy, but you're not . You're just a coward and a bully .

Quote:

puking up your hysterical hatred

Did you just say that and not realise the irony ?

Quote:

You really can't handle strong contradiction

It is unbelievable that you could say that and not realise what you are...

0 Replies

@argome321,

Quote:

their instincts are highly developed much more so than our own

I dont think so . I think their instincts are more in charge . We suppress ours .

Quote:

Domestic cats though tamed never lose their instinctual evolutionary ability to hunt.

True, and I dont know if any animal really becomes tame . I think they employ their instincts there too and assume we are their parents .

Quote:

Emotion is what moves us. Organism want to survive by fueling our selves and propagating. Emotions moves us in that direction. Instinct is one of the tools provided by nature to achieve those goals.

Love as an emotion can be said to helps bind us to our clans for protection, nurture and helps fulfill our social needs. In humans it seems even more important because our growth years take longer than other animals

I'm not sure I follow . To me, instincts, as you come up through the levels of the brain and increasing complexity, turn into emotions . If we go back through evolution and could determine this, I feel we would find an animal that started to show emotions as well as instincts . A line in the sand, where on one side the animal has nothing but instincts, and on the other the first emotions . Now you couldnt do away with instincts, that would be fatal .

Quote:

Gradual start or not, it is still a human construct from the mind of man
-thus leaving man to drop it or continue it. He has the option.

Certainly .

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I recall the time when he was arguing at the top of his voice about the existence of DNA from dinosaur fossils and how this"fact" was clearly evidence of
some other piece of bullshit he was spouting.

fact and evidence has never stopped him from having an opinion . Remember his crap about the US civil war (it was fresh wikipedia crap that was unedited by anyone who knew the facts. BUT Disagree with him , and he starts with the insult "SFB" is but a moderate title.
Im senile according to him and I am supposed to check into a home for people who dont know squat.

He must have personal eperience ith such establishments .

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
as Olivier5 so kindly reminded me

And as you so kindly reminded me earlier...

Sure. I wasn't complaining.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know