Atheists... Your life is pointless

@spendius,

Quote:

The evolution of social systems has selected in a Deity/ies

Have you taken into account that we adapt to our environment meaning that if our understanding of reality becomes more correct than previously understood that we might adapt to this new understanding?
Surly there will be some that lag behind but are you certain that the majority will always believe in deities?

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

You wrote,

Quote:

Surly there will be some that lag behind but are you certain that the majority will always believe in deities?

Good question. I wonder too, if man finds other "developed" life forms on other planets. Or will that make any difference?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

I never new that the christian faith was the founder of moral understandings.

That's what comes of confining your reading to Ladies' Home Journal rl.

Quote:

How about logical consistencies just as all other concepts are supported by?

With you defining them I presume. Did you not understand what I said to Cyr about "intelligencies and consciences".

Quote:

Have you taken into account that we adapt to our environment meaning that if our understanding of reality becomes more correct than previously understood that we might adapt to this new understanding?

Which, again, will be broadly similar to your understanding of reality.

Quote:

Surly there will be some that lag behind but are you certain that the majority will always believe in deities?

I didn't say that. You can choose totalitarianism or promiscuity or bumbling along powerlessly with your wooly ravings and being meaningless and at the mercy of those with clearer understandings. "We" might adapt to all sorts of things. That's what I mean by wooly. This "we" concept joined up to a banality. A form of small scale demagoguery.

Your ideas are a hodgepodge of rationalizations standing upon some half-baked notions of modern science in a totally unscientific manner in order to explain to yourself, and those you include in the "we", exactly why your superiority is perfectly natural and justifies you setting aside Christian teaching on sexual morality.

Human beings are not rational when their desires are in play. If they were there would be no budget deficits and national debt.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Good question. I wonder too, if man finds other "developed" life forms on other planets. Or will that make any difference?

I suspect it won't make a bit of difference...unless we evolve before discovering the other developed life forms.

And providing the other developed life forms were not subjected to the same pressures as humans to invent gods.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

There cannot be a morality without something to support it except the morality of promiscuity. (Biology).

That is a strange notion to advance. Promiscuity is not even an evolutionary strategy that most species of animals practice.

Quote:

As many moralities as there are people. Not really a morality at all.

You are confusing morality with social mores.

Quote:

The question is what do you have for that support if not a Deity? That was the question I asked. " What do you use if not a Deity?"

I thought you were asking how to enforce something? To exert an illusory concept of dominance and control. Dominance and control are not even physically possible. Due to the impossibility of prediction.
PDF download
Summary

Quote:

The other question was do you want everybody to see past a Deity as you do?

I don't much care whether someone recognizes a deity, I care about how they behave and how they interact with society.

Quote:

You seem to me to be using Christian morality as a starting point. A given. It was not always a given. It is not a given now. It was created. You would not even be able to envisage it unless it had been.

That seems a silly thing to assume (Christianity as a starting point). Do you think that Christianity formed in a vacuum? "Created" whole cloth from the dreaming and scheming of isolated individuals? The only reason I even mentioned Christianity to you at all, is that Christianity seems to be your cause célèbre.
I would be happy to abandon any relationship between Christianity and morality in our discussion, if that is your preference. Would you like to instead talk of Buddhism in relation to morality?

Quote:

Why would respect for women come naturally when superior force has no respect for the territory of others who are half female? You live on land as a result of superior force having no respect for the land of others.

If you think that superior force is the overwhelming driving force of social/moral change, then your assertion might have merit. I do not think that history bears you out on this. Regardless of the physical "victors" or "victims" in even violent intersocietal conflicts the cultural can assimilate the conquerors (Alexander the Great for instance).

Quote:

Women can be persuaded that they are respected. Hypnotized. The feminists are not persuaded. "All men are rapists", they say. Neither are the Indians. They say "white man speaks with forked tongue." In both cases the law insists they should be. They are respected de jure but what about de facto?

There are to many gross generalization in this paragraph for it to even border on comprehension.

Quote:

I'll put the main question again--What do you suggest a morality be supported by if not a Deity?

I suggest that morality be based on truths which transcend individual cultural substrates. Principles which tend toward maximization of individual/societal/inter-societal success as measured by levels of suffering and eudaimonia.

1 Reply

@igm,

MattDavis wrote:

Absolute skepticism leaves no ability to function. You would doubt yourself into non-thinking.

Igm wrote:

Are you sure?

Yes. I am pretty sure. Explain to me what thinking would mean without assumption.

Quote:

How about a mind resting in loving-kindness and compassion because of skepticism about thoughts themselves?

Are you equating 'mind' with thinking or not?
You can't have it both ways. I spoke of thought, you invoked mind (which I assume carries a different meaning for you).
Skepticism is a mental activity, not a transcendental understanding. You are confusing thought with what you prefer to call mind.

Quote:

The actions would come out of this state of mind and someone without this state of mind asking for help... just out of 'apparent' causes and conditions' coming together.

I certainly don't fundamentally disagree with your moral understanding regarding altruism.
I will point out that the activity you describe requires an assumption of you and someone else. Even if the you/else distinction is realized to be more complex that you=[not else] and else=[not you], you must still have an understanding of a functional distinction in order to properly function.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Quote:

Surly there will be some that lag behind but are you certain that the majority will always believe in deities?

I didn't say that.

Are you suggesting that humans will advance past this dogma that you uphold in the future?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Are you suggesting that humans will advance past this dogma that you uphold in the future?

They might. Not will.

What dogma am I advancing?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

What dogma am I advancing?

You are advancing the dogmas of the catholic faith.
Much of what you share are things that you have been taught to be seen as taboo without any logical consistencies to back them.

Just as we have words that we teach should not be spoken especially by young children. What is it that makes such words taboo? "society who says they are without any good reason why "other than it is wrong.

Do not get me wrong because I think that we all hold somethings to be taboo.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

That is a strange notion to advance.

Quote:

You are confusing morality with social mores.

Quote:

I thought you were asking how to enforce something?

Quote:

I don't much care whether someone recognizes a deity

Quote:

That seems a silly thing to assume

Quote:

Would you like to instead talk of Buddhism in relation to morality?

Quote:

There are to many gross generalization in this paragraph for it to even border on comprehension.

Uuuuumm!! I've been here before Matt.

Do you think we should take Christianity down to the landfill? What's holding you guys up? It is founded on lies isn't it? It has a comprehensive record of evil doings. It's hierarchy sport fat bellies, double chins and purple noses, and are shagging the nuns. And they piss-ball about in ridiculous ceremonials dressed in idiotic vestments muttering mumbo-jumbo, ringing bells, wafting incense about and spraying holy water. On prime real estate too. And they extort money from the poor so they can fly first class and live the life of Riley. They are probably all atheists as well.

What's taking you so long? Will you explain your self-evident failure to see the buggers off and have them do some work for a change?

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Do you think we should take Christianity down to the landfill? What's holding you guys up? It is founded on lies isn't it? It has a comprehensive record of evil doings. It's hierarchy sport fat bellies, double chins and purple noses, and are shagging the nuns. And they piss-ball about in ridiculous ceremonials dressed in idiotic vestments muttering mumbo-jumbo, ringing bells, wafting incense about and spraying holy water. On prime real estate too. And they extort money from the poor so they can fly first class and live the life of Riley.

If this is what you believe why still support it?

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

Yes. I am pretty sure. Explain to me what thinking would mean without assumption.

Actions for example happen without conscious thoughts in some circumstances e.g. sport (the ball travels so fast that one cannot think about hitting the ball one just does it).

MattDavis wrote:

Are you equating 'mind' with thinking or not?

Thinking is an aspect of the mind but mind ‘is’ our reality and there may or may not be a separate ‘other’ than mind. So mind can function without conscious thought.

igm wrote:

The actions would come out of this state of mind and someone without this state of mind asking for help... just out of 'apparent' causes and conditions' coming together.

MattDavis wrote:

I will point out that the activity you describe requires an assumption of you and someone else. Even if the you/else distinction is realized to be more complex that you=[not else] and else=[not you], you must still have an understanding of a functional distinction in order to properly function.

The assumption comes from the sentient being that believes that the e.g. Buddha is an object 'other' than themselves. The coming together is ‘only’ in the mind of the sentient being, nevertheless an action is produced as it is ‘apparent’ cause and effect, something must happen and it does.

I can only ‘hint’ at what I’m getting at. I do it because I wonder if you have a ‘blind spot’ to such things.

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

If this is what you believe why still support it?

I don't fancy any alternatives. As I explained a couple of posts back. Did you not read what I said?

Let's have your alternative. You don't throw your shoes away unless you have others to put on do you?

Human beings have no redeeming features. I know you like to think they have but they haven't.

"Aaah--if only the Romans had but one neck." Caligula.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Actions for example happen without conscious thoughts in some circumstances e.g. sport (the ball travels so fast that one cannot think about hitting the ball one just does it).

Are you suggesting that it is not thought out whether the ball is so far out of the strike zone that one should not attempt to strike at it?

Just because the mind is faster than the ball at times does not mean that it was not conscious of what was happening does it?

It may have made a decision before we realized it but does this mean that the mind was not processing the information before we were able to realize it or an MRI was able to detect our awareness?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Let's have your alternative

I explained a couple of posts back. Did you not read what I said?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
Actions for example happen without conscious thoughts in some circumstances e.g. sport (the ball travels so fast that one cannot think about hitting the ball one just does it).

Are you suggesting that it is not thought out whether the ball is so far out of the strike zone that one should not attempt to strike at it?

Just because the mind is faster than the ball at times does not mean that it was not conscious of what was happening does it?

It may have made a decision before we realized it but does this mean that the mind was not processing the information before we were able to realize it or an MRI was able to detect our awareness?

Hi rl, there's a lot of voting down going on... the whole page above is littered with minuses and zeros! Who cares Smile

If you note the words I've now highlighted in blue above would you still reply the same way?

1 Reply

@igm,

Matt wrote:

Absolute skepticism leaves no ability to function. You would doubt yourself into non-thinking.

So I gather from your response that you agree with the second sentence.
Mind is not equal to thinking.

But you take issue with the first sentence. You seem to think that function can take place without assumption. I still disagree. The "pre-conscious" functions which you list are not without assumption. They still involve a doer and a doing, which requires the assumption of a distinction between doer and that which is done. You do not have to be able to reflect on something in order for assumptions to be in place. Perhaps we should examine the distinction between awareness and assumption.
Do you hold that assumptions are only those of which "self" is aware?

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

So I gather from your response that you agree with the second sentence.
Mind is not equal to thinking.

If to you that is equivalent to thinking being an aspect of mind then... yes.

MattDavis wrote:

But you take issue with the first sentence. You seem to think that function can take place without assumption. I still disagree.

The assumption comes from the sentient being and that causes the function but for the Buddha it is merely the function of the sentient being that causes a dependent function to arise between the Buddha and the sentient being. The sentient being interprets the result in this way but the Buddha makes no interpretation of the result. It just happened like when the right causes and conditions were present then it just happened. But only the sentient being would report the event as a subject/object event

1 Reply

@spendius,

Is everything about 'us' and 'them' to you?
Are you capable of separating concept from prejudice?
Or will I always be subjected to addressing fallacious ad hominem arguments regarding your perception of "Christianity".
Are we discussing belief structures or are we discussing human fallibility?

0 Replies

@igm,

You are of course free to believe whatever you like regarding the origin of the assumptions.
There is competing evidence that such assumptions have "pre-conscious" neurological origins.
"Hard-wired" assumptions in a sense, though only in a very simplistic sense.

1 Reply

Atheists... Your life is pointless

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know