Why Do Atheists Care About Religion?

[Ouroboros]

The reason that I don't see people being good by nature is that I read the news every day. If people are good by nature, there wouldn't be the crime problem that we have. Can you explain that if people are good by nature?

 

LNC

I wasn't claiming that people were good by nature, I was wondering why you chose one over the other. I'm not really an either or person. I think it takes both good and bad in order for us to even know the difference. Didn't the Garden of Eden teach you anything?

The thing I find fascinating is LNC comes across as a very rational, thinking person. He uses logic and reasoning in articulating his arguments, and even claims faith is dependent upon empirical evidence as its foundation (which is to me the definition of a materialist, actually). Yet, above he states he takes what he is exposed to in the media as some sort of statistical, empirical evidence to conclude that humans are mostly bad!

Plus that it's a hasty generalization fallacy or a begging the question fallacy. Just because he reads about "evil" people in the news each day doesn't mean that all humans or even a majority is bad. The news focus only on a few bad people, so by saying that in general all people then are bad is a hasty generalization. Secondly, what evidence is there that just because news report about bad people would people be bad in general? He assumes that it's proven just by looking at the news about some events. Also, he's making an ad hominem. He is painting the whole humanity as evil, or put it this way, he's attacking humanity as a group and not the argument. Another fallacy he is committing is non sequitor. It doesn't follow that humans in general are bad just because a few are bad or that they are reported in the news. And last but not least, he's making a faulty emotional appeal since he's trying to make us feel bad about how bad people are, and we all know how it feels to read the news and see all the crap that's going on. So we feel with him, and he's trying to make the argument based on those feelings.

 

So how many fallacies did I manage to fit in? 4? 5?

 

[agnosticator]

Matter interacting is neither good or bad, it just is.

 

The immaterial is neither good or bad, it just isn't.

 

If a rock rolls down a hill due to an earth tremor and crushes a house full of people, we don't say the rock was evil. When a tornado rips through a village and kills people, we don't say the tornado was evil.

 

True. It's called natural evil, because we beings suffer and die (it is evil to us). But we don't blame a thing for doing an "evil" act when it isn't a sentient being.

 

Why do we consider it evil when matter in the form of a human kills another person?

 

We are more than "just matter". Only living, material beings (such as humans) can have relationships with each other. Morality is non-existent without living, material beings in relationships. You cannot harm or kill a rock.

[agnosticator]

You know I was just thinking that the reason LNC can't admit that people are also, or mostly, good is that it would remove the necessity of salvation. People can't be both good and bad afterall. <-sarcasm

 

BINGO! LNC fell for "The Fall".

[Antlerman]

 

So how many fallacies did I manage to fit in? 4? 5?

 

 

That was great. Don't know why but I just thought of this old joke...

Priest says to the Rabbi, "Rabbi, when are you going to come to your senses and just have a good ham sandwich with me?" The Rabbi responses, "At your wedding Father."

 

I guess the point is, "LNC, when are you just going to sit down and have a good ham sandwich with us?"

[Ouroboros]

That was great. Don't know why but I just thought of this old joke...

Priest says to the Rabbi, "Rabbi, when are you going to come to your senses and just have a good ham sandwich with me?" The Rabbi responses, "At your wedding Father."

 

I guess the point is, "LNC, when are you just going to sit down and have a good ham sandwich with us?"

I think that story encapsulates the problem perfectly. It's a bit tu quoque dilemma in all these things. We do what he does, and he does what we do, and we accuse each other of using fallacies.

 

The thing is, I know that I don't use perfect logic in all my discussions. I know that I use ad hominem, and I'm not ashamed of doing it. But I also know that the process of reasoning and arriving at conclusions is more about intuitive understanding of things than perfect discourse. And even a made up story, myth or fable, can provide more than just escapism and tell some truth about reality. In other words, it's not necessarily the medium that defines what value the words have, but what kind of result the content itself gives. It's kind of how some Christians want to argue for the value of Christianity. (However, I don't feel Christian myth gives the value they claim it does, but that's another question.)

[NotBlinded]

And Amen to you all...

[NotBlinded]

I finally figured out what LNC meant by the Springsteen song about nobody being right if everybody's wrong. He is trying to show how it is non-logical to claim that morals aren't objective by using the paradox of this sentence. Which, doesn't mean anything except that sentences can be made that are paradoxical and that sometimes logic can lead to these false conclusions.

 

Like this one:

 

This statement is false.

 

What does that say about objective morality?

 

Maybe he should try a little LNNC?

[agnosticator]

I finally figured out what LNC meant by the Springsteen song about nobody being right if everybody's wrong. He is trying to show how it is non-logical to claim that morals aren't objective by using the paradox of this sentence. Which, doesn't mean anything except that sentences can be made that are paradoxical and that sometimes logic can lead to these false conclusions...

 

Ya know, I've been thinking about this whole "necessary" objective morality, and I've concluded that the idea is obsolete. We have learned much about the human animal throughout history. Theologians and philosophers have beaten the idea to death. Even assuming God's existence has no bearing on the basis of morality. God couldn't utilize morals. They are irrelevant to Him/Her. I dare say that LNC is arguing for an assinine and non-existent notion that's really an exercise in logic. And you're observation is right.

 

He's using logic alone, while ignoring what is relevant: people who are essentially the same. People who share the experiences of feelings, pain, and death. Not to mention love and EMPATHY. His argument casts all this aside. But these are what morality is about.

[Antlerman]

Even assuming God's existence has no bearing on the basis of morality. God couldn't utilize morals. They are irrelevant to Him/Her. I dare say that LNC is arguing for an assinine and non-existent notion that's really an exercise in logic. And you're observation is right.

 

He's using logic alone, while ignoring what is relevant

Very well said.

 

LNC is an open wound out of a bleeding half-dead corpse. The death-null of a passing age. So much energy expended on a sinking ship.

[agnosticator]

Very well said.

 

Thanks! Sometimes I make sense.

 

LNC is an open wound out of a bleeding half-dead corpse. The death-null of a passing age. So much energy expended on a sinking ship.

 

Does that make us the vultures? I love the smell of decaying flesh in the morning.

[Legion]

Noble Antlerman, I feel these past few months I have mostly been criticizing you. I think that's unfortunate, because I have great respect for you and you are my friend But when I see someone of your caliber say things like the following, I feel compelled to speak up.

 

... empirical evidence ... to me the definition of a materialist

To make this association is to equate science with reductionism or materialism in my opinion. The findings of science must ultimately be verified through empirical means. But science need not be equated with materialism or reductionism, though even many practicing scientists may themselves make this equivalence.

[Legion]

Then there is reality, which is objective (the physical world), and then there is our understanding of reality (the human world), which is subjective and the interactions of the human world in the physical world which contains both.

I think this is dead on accurate. Understanding the objective world is a relationship between it and our subjective selves. We sense it, which is a transduction from objective phenomena to subjective propositions. We reason, which takes place entirely within our subjective selves. We predict, which is a projection from propositions to phenomena. And sometimes, through a near miracle, these processes of sensing, reasoning, and predicting actually commute with the causal procesess of the objective world.

[Shyone]

Then there is reality, which is objective (the physical world), and then there is our understanding of reality (the human world), which is subjective and the interactions of the human world in the physical world which contains both.

I think this is dead on accurate. Understanding the objective world is a relationship between it and our subjective selves. We sense it, which is a transduction from objective phenomena to subjective propositions. We reason, which takes place entirely within our subjective selves. We predict, which is a projection from propositions to phenomena. And sometimes, through a near miracle, these processes of sensing, reasoning, and predicting actually commute with the causal procesess of the objective world.

And let me make an unpopular observation; that our subjective impressions do not change a physical reality that exists outside of our minds. Ignorance of the universe is similar to sensory deprivation where thoughts run wild and dreams seem to take on their own lives. Such is religion and the concepts of invisible, spiritual, immaterial essences or undefinable intelligence that cannot be described, defined, or demonstrated.

[Legion]

And let me make an unpopular observation; that our subjective impressions do not change a physical reality that exists outside of our minds. Ignorance of the universe is similar to sensory deprivation where thoughts run wild and dreams seem to take on their own lives. Such is religion and the concepts of invisible, spiritual, immaterial essences or undefinable intelligence that cannot be described, defined, or demonstrated.

I think a dead give away about "religious understanding" is that it makes few, if any, predictions about the natural world. The main utility of understanding in my assessment is that it allows us to predict the world and thus alter our own behavior in anticipation of it.

[Antlerman]

Noble Antlerman, I feel these past few months I have mostly been criticizing you. I think that's unfortunate, because I have great respect for you and you are my friend But when I see someone of your caliber say things like the following, I feel compelled to speak up.

 

... empirical evidence ... to me the definition of a materialist

To make this association is to equate science with reductionism or materialism in my opinion. The findings of science must ultimately be verified through empirical means. But science need not be equated with materialism or reductionism, though even many practicing scientists may themselves make this equivalence.

Goodness, you must feel a need to find fault. Check out the context which you omitted:

 

and even

claims

faith

is dependent upon empirical evidence as its foundation

(which is to me the definition of a materialist, actually).

This is not reductionism in the scientific sense. This is about faith based on evidence. That, is going beyond doing science to a belief system; which is the definition of materialism. His faith is materialist, being based in material evidence. I stand by what I said.

 

Why did you miss that?

[Shyone]

And let me make an unpopular observation; that our subjective impressions do not change a physical reality that exists outside of our minds. Ignorance of the universe is similar to sensory deprivation where thoughts run wild and dreams seem to take on their own lives. Such is religion and the concepts of invisible, spiritual, immaterial essences or undefinable intelligence that cannot be described, defined, or demonstrated.

I think a dead give away about "religious understanding" is that it makes few, if any, predictions about the natural world. The main utility of understanding in my assessment is that it allows us to predict the world and thus alter our own behavior in anticipation of it.

This is so true. So very true.

[Legion]

I stand corrected Anlterman.

 

Context changes everything.

[Antlerman]

I stand corrected Anlterman.

 

Context changes everything.

And so what other criticisms do you have over the last couple months? Perhaps I can clear those up as well. Or I'm all for challenges if you have them. I'm constantly pushing at the edges of how I conceive of things. It's what I do, and why I could never be some follower of doctrinal orthodoxies, such as LNC suggests we adopt and conform our minds to.

[Legion]

I'm all for challenges if you have them.

 

Just know that I'll be watching you.

[Antlerman]

I'm all for challenges if you have them.

 

Just know that I'll be watching you.

...waiting....

[NotBlinded]

I finally figured out what LNC meant by the Springsteen song about nobody being right if everybody's wrong. He is trying to show how it is non-logical to claim that morals aren't objective by using the paradox of this sentence. Which, doesn't mean anything except that sentences can be made that are paradoxical and that sometimes logic can lead to these false conclusions...

 

Ya know, I've been thinking about this whole "necessary" objective morality, and I've concluded that the idea is obsolete. We have learned much about the human animal throughout history. Theologians and philosophers have beaten the idea to death. Even assuming God's existence has no bearing on the basis of morality. God couldn't utilize morals. They are irrelevant to Him/Her. I dare say that LNC is arguing for an assinine and non-existent notion that's really an exercise in logic. And you're observation is right.

 

He's using logic alone, while ignoring what is relevant: people who are essentially the same. People who share the experiences of feelings, pain, and death. Not to mention love and EMPATHY. His argument casts all this aside. But these are what morality is about.

Yes.

 

I remember asking a question of my nephew on the day my mother died. It wasn't long after they took her out of her house and we were sitting outside on the back porch. I looked at him and asked, and I have no idea why I asked it, "Is logic all there is to life?" He answered, "No."

 

I can now better understand why something about a purely logical approach to everything didn't sit right with me then and still doesn't. You know, I wish I could come to understand myself a little better and why it takes a long time for me to figure out what doesn't sit right with me.

[NotBlinded]

Very well said.

 

Thanks! Sometimes I make sense.

You always make sense. I'm just slow.

 

LNC is an open wound out of a bleeding half-dead corpse. The death-null of a passing age. So much energy expended on a sinking ship.

 

Does that make us the vultures? I love the smell of decaying flesh in the morning.

Eeeeewwwwwwwww!

[NotBlinded]

Then there is reality, which is objective (the physical world), and then there is our understanding of reality (the human world), which is subjective and the interactions of the human world in the physical world which contains both.

I think this is dead on accurate. Understanding the objective world is a relationship between it and our subjective selves. We sense it, which is a transduction from objective phenomena to subjective propositions. We reason, which takes place entirely within our subjective selves. We predict, which is a projection from propositions to phenomena. And sometimes, through a near miracle, these processes of sensing, reasoning, and predicting actually commute with the causal procesess of the objective world.

Which is a communion with ourselves.

 

[NotBlinded]

Then there is reality, which is objective (the physical world), and then there is our understanding of reality (the human world), which is subjective and the interactions of the human world in the physical world which contains both.

I think this is dead on accurate. Understanding the objective world is a relationship between it and our subjective selves. We sense it, which is a transduction from objective phenomena to subjective propositions. We reason, which takes place entirely within our subjective selves. We predict, which is a projection from propositions to phenomena. And sometimes, through a near miracle, these processes of sensing, reasoning, and predicting actually commute with the causal procesess of the objective world.

And let me make an unpopular observation; that our subjective impressions do not change a physical reality that exists outside of our minds. Ignorance of the universe is similar to sensory deprivation where thoughts run wild and dreams seem to take on their own lives. Such is religion and the concepts of invisible, spiritual, immaterial essences or undefinable intelligence that cannot be described, defined, or demonstrated.

Yeah, well, like, whatever! Like you know what all this "physical" reality consists of? What the heck is this material anyway? Can you see it by reducing it?

 

What is the "stuff" that matter exists in? Material? No wonder I keep tripping over "stuff".

 

So there...

 

(You know I luv ya!)

[Shyone]

Then there is reality, which is objective (the physical world), and then there is our understanding of reality (the human world), which is subjective and the interactions of the human world in the physical world which contains both.

I think this is dead on accurate. Understanding the objective world is a relationship between it and our subjective selves. We sense it, which is a transduction from objective phenomena to subjective propositions. We reason, which takes place entirely within our subjective selves. We predict, which is a projection from propositions to phenomena. And sometimes, through a near miracle, these processes of sensing, reasoning, and predicting actually commute with the causal procesess of the objective world.

And let me make an unpopular observation; that our subjective impressions do not change a physical reality that exists outside of our minds. Ignorance of the universe is similar to sensory deprivation where thoughts run wild and dreams seem to take on their own lives. Such is religion and the concepts of invisible, spiritual, immaterial essences or undefinable intelligence that cannot be described, defined, or demonstrated.

Yeah, well, like, whatever! Like you know what all this "physical" reality consists of? What the heck is this material anyway? Can you see it by reducing it?

 

What is the "stuff" that matter exists in? Material? No wonder I keep tripping over "stuff".

 

So there...

 

(You know I luv ya!)

Perhaps the saddest thing about existence is that we will never directly experience physical reality until we are ourselves broken down and reincorporated into the universe. As bits of organized matter perceiving reality through our many filters, we are the ghosts in the machine.