Why Do Atheists Care About Religion?

[Antlerman]

And let me make an unpopular observation; that our subjective impressions do not change a physical reality that exists outside of our minds.

And let me make an unpopular observation myself. Our physical reality is not the reality inside our minds; and physical reality does not define that reality.

 

So, you can't look to the surfaces and know the inside.

 

BTW, you bet your sweet ass our subjective minds in fact does change the physical reality outside of it! Just open your eyes to everything we created within our minds and altered in the world outside it. You're a doctor, right? How about human life-span for a starter? Now lets look at our ecosystem. Have we done anything to change that?

 

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.

You cannot compare religion and its use of symbols in a mythological framework with sensory deprivation. They are interacting with their world, using logic and reason as well. Just because their understanding of the world is framed in a mythological worldspace, does not mean that the same reasoning processes aren't working as they are in a rational worldspace. The context is what is different, how we conceive of the world.

 

And when you speak of spiritual and immaterial, your understanding is on the same level as that of those who imagine ghosts and spirit beings. You really have no idea what your talking about outside that context, based on your comments above.

[Shyone]

BTW, you bet your sweet ass our subjective minds in fact does change the physical reality outside of it! Just open your eyes to everything we created within our minds and altered in the world outside it. You're a doctor, right? How about human life-span for a starter? Now lets look at our ecosystem. Have we done anything to change that?

 

You changed a word and got a different meaning from what I was saying.

 

Should I...?

 

Nah, I'll leave it at that.

 

You cannot compare religion and its use of symbols in a mythological framework with sensory deprivation.

 

Actually, I think you can. Garbage in, garbage out.

[NotBlinded]

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.

Ok, stop fucking with me. You are aren't you? Yes, you must be...hummm Hey, stop it!

[NotBlinded]

You cannot compare religion and its use of symbols in a mythological framework with sensory deprivation.

 

Actually, I think you can. Garbage in, garbage out.

You know, Plato did the same thing when thinking about sensory deprivation and arrived at a notion of God.

[Antlerman]

You cannot compare religion and its use of symbols in a mythological framework with sensory deprivation.

 

Actually, I think you can. Garbage in, garbage out.

You know, Plato did the same thing when thinking about sensory deprivation and arrived at a notion of God.

Actually I was thinking of going there but I didn't.

 

Here's the flaw of his argument. Sensory deprivation is not garbage in. There is zero in.

 

Further more, whether it's 'subjective impressions' or 'subjective minds' it does not change the meaning of what I pointed out. Our subjective impressions of the world will in fact change the world by how we choose to interact with it. Same difference. Interchangeable.

[agnosticator]

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'm sorry for the loss of your mother. It's exhausting and mind numbing to deal with.

 

 

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.

 

 

Out of the mouth of babes...I have difficulty translating "what doesn't sit right with me" too. My sub-conscious is more in touch with my feelings, or vice versa? So my conscious thoughts lag behind both. I feel like a dumbass when that happens!

[agnosticator]

 

 

 

 

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

Eeeeewwwwwwwww!

 

Sorry, napalm wasn't related to the post, so I had to go with the gross stuff. I hope you weren't eating at the keyboard. Vomit is so hard to clean from between the keys! HaHa!

[Shyone]

Further more, whether it's 'subjective impressions' or 'subjective minds' it does not change the meaning of what I pointed out. Our subjective impressions of the world will in fact change the world by how we choose to interact with it. Same difference. Interchangeable.

What I was trying to say (let's see if I can make this unambiguous) is that our impression of reality, without our deliberate or accidental action on behalf of that impression, does not change the reality.

 

If I have an impression that rain is caused by loud noises, loud noises still do not have any effect on rain. It is our responsibiilty to see that our impressions align with reality, not the other way around. Does that clear things up?

 

You are using mind in the sense that minds are the motivators of bodily actions that may then manifest changes in reality. I'm trying to say that the impression alone, sans action, is either more right or more wrong (or absolutely right or absolutely wrong).

 

Dealing with how our actions affect the environment is another topic entirely - and that would have to deal with how reality works. If our impressions of how reality works are correct, and we take measures to affect that reality, then we may affect what is real in some way - like moving furniture physically. If our impressions are incorrect, and we sing to the furniture expecting it to move, then the furniture will not move and the only thing created are sound waves.

[Legion]

I love how Antlerman, NotBlinded and Shyone always get into these epistemological debates.

 

Antlerman the surfaces/interiors guy with NotBlinded the omniconscience gal vs Shyone the materialist.

 

Each of you is wrong, but it's fun to see how close you come to being right.

[florduh]

Each of you is wrong, but it's fun to see how close you come to being right.

All are wrong, and all are right. Try to snatch the pebble from my hand, Grasshopper.

[Legion]

Each of you is wrong, but it's fun to see how close you come to being right.

All are wrong, and all are right. Try to snatch the pebble from my hand, Grasshopper.

Your Stalking Tiger Kung Fu is no match for my Crazy Monkey style.

[florduh]

Your Stalking Tiger Kung Fu is no match for my Crazy Monkey style.

Crouching Tiger, Masturbating Monkey, we are all One.

 

I think Rosen said that.

[Antlerman]

Further more, whether it's 'subjective impressions' or 'subjective minds' it does not change the meaning of what I pointed out. Our subjective impressions of the world will in fact change the world by how we choose to interact with it. Same difference. Interchangeable.

What I was trying to say (let's see if I can make this unambiguous) is that our impression of reality, without our deliberate or accidental action on behalf of that impression, does not change the reality. If I have an impression that rain is caused by loud noises, loud noises still do not have any effect on rain. It is our responsibiilty to see that our impressions align with reality, not the other way around. Does that clear things up?

And what NB was saying is that it is not possible for reality to exist for us without the interaction of the subjective and objective. I understand what you are trying to suggest, that there is an objective, "pre-given" state of "what is", and that it is our responsibly to find that truth and stand on it as 'the way of things'.

 

I'm saying that is an illusion. The world to a child is every bit as real to them as it is to an adult. At each point he is living in an objective reality, made *reality* to him by the interaction of the physical spaces around him, and his subjective cognitive stage of development. The child is not 'living in a fantasy', or is delusional, or something. He simply lacks the developmental tools to look at the world from the deeper perspectives that a mature adult does.

 

The problem I have is when I hear someone suggest that how they are now seeing the world is closer to the *real* reality of 'what is'. That is precisely what every stage of our development says of itself with where it is at. Of course we know better about world than thinking it is influenced directly by our thoughts alone (a type of magic, that it doesn't rain because someone in the village raped a goat).

 

And guess what? As human society moved away from animistic, magic systems to the more externalized mythological systems (that it's not us that controls the elements of nature, but a god in heaven), that was, and is in fact more sophisticated way of seeing the world than an animistic one. This is further differentiation from being fused with the environment as an animal, a simple reactive participant in the ecosystem like a dragonfly.

 

To those in the mythical worldspace, that was closer to the reality of 'how things are' than those who thought that they could affect the weather themselves! They had the truth! Just as you now think you're closer to the truth. They had all their supports in place, and it was in fact a logical conclusion for the world they lived in. Now, however because we have a new perspective, a new worldspace to operated and try to relate ourselves to our world within, it appears to us to be much closer to the 'way things are'. And they are. To us. But not to tomorrow, just as myth systems aren't to us today.

 

Each stage thinks they are better connected to *reality*. Including our stage.

 

You are using mind in the sense that minds are the motivators of bodily actions that may then manifest changes in reality. I'm trying to say that the impression alone, sans action, is either more right or more wrong (or absolutely right or absolutely wrong).

I am using minds in the sense of that subjective world of thought and creativity that operates in a space of relative autonomy as opposed to being strictly determined by our biology. That mind, that evolved depth of our internal being is in interaction with our biology and with the physical world, both influencing and being influenced by it. But it is not, and cannot be reduced to either. Our impressions, cannot be isolated from anything and do in fact affect the environment, our bodies, and our social worlds.

 

Mind is more than just impulse of the primitive lizard brain giving motives to bodily actions, like itching a scratch or seeking to reproduce. Those are all there, integrated into our higher cognitive realities of developed mind.

 

And as far as being "either more right or more wrong (or absolutely right or absolutely wrong)", again as being judged by you from your perspective to something far, far beyond any of us. You cannot place an idea in the realm of ultimate truth. It's no different than arguing for the existence of a mythical god. Each stage of development sees itself as centered or closer to that absolute truth. Much the way we arrogantly thought we knew when our young minds opened up at age 18.

 

Dealing with how our actions affect the environment is another topic entirely - and that would have to deal with how reality works.

Oh, you're reducing *reality* to the laws of physics. I see.

 

If our impressions of how reality works are correct, and we take measures to affect that reality, then we may affect what is real in some way - like moving furniture physically.

Or affecting biology to produce a new reality reflective of that internal reality, such as the sense of the aesthetic, what is beautiful, what is socially desirable, for example influencing sexual selection, affecting genetic distribution, affecting bodily forms and capabilities. Or making choices based upon beliefs and values (all that internal stuff of mind), that affects our environment, that forces changes in behaviors that affects our minds, our bodies, and our new environments, which impacts our views, our beliefs, our actions, our environments, and on and on and on.

 

If our impressions are incorrect, and we sing to the furniture expecting it to move, then the furniture will not move and the only thing created are sound waves.

It's never been that stupid. If there was zero effect, it wouldn't be practiced for long, let alone adopted by societies, and intigrated into their culture through language, ritual and art.

 

It's not singing to furniture, or facing your ideas of reality with no other considerations to look at. Who is not facing reality? Are you so certain of it? Just remember they were too.

 

As my friend from Bible college said to me, "Yeah, but the difference is now I really DO have the truth". Really?

[Antlerman]

I love how Antlerman, NotBlinded and Shyone always get into these epistemological debates.

 

Antlerman the surfaces/interiors guy with NotBlinded the omniconscience gal vs Shyone the materialist.

 

Each of you is wrong, but it's fun to see how close you come to being right.

Please, I would love to hear you jump into this discussion with your thoughts articulated. Personally I'll bet we're closer to saying the same thing than you imagine, and the difficulty is in communication.

 

But we can't know if you don't participate, rather than just assuming you're right and being some sort of old naysayer from the sideline.

 

[Mriana]

Each of you is wrong, but it's fun to see how close you come to being right.

All are wrong, and all are right. Try to snatch the pebble from my hand, Grasshopper.

 

Seconded florduh.

[Legion]

Your Stalking Tiger Kung Fu is no match for my Crazy Monkey style.

Crouching Tiger, Masturbating Monkey, we are all One.

 

I think Rosen said that.

 

I love how Antlerman, NotBlinded and Shyone always get into these epistemological debates.

 

Antlerman the surfaces/interiors guy with NotBlinded the omniconscience gal vs Shyone the materialist.

 

Each of you is wrong, but it's fun to see how close you come to being right.

Please, I would love to hear you jump into this discussion with your thoughts articulated. Personally I'll bet we're closer to saying the same thing than you imagine, and the difficulty is in communication.

 

But we can't know if you don't participate, rather than just assuming you're right and being some sort of old naysayer from the sideline.

 

The thing is; everyone is impatient. Everyone wants to skip to the end of these discussions about epistemology. But I think we should start at the bottom, at the basement.

[Antlerman]

Please, I would love to hear you jump into this discussion with your thoughts articulated. Personally I'll bet we're closer to saying the same thing than you imagine, and the difficulty is in communication.

 

But we can't know if you don't participate, rather than just assuming you're right and being some sort of old naysayer from the sideline.

 

The thing is; everyone is impatient. Everyone wants to skip to the end of these discussions about epistemology. But I think we should start at the bottom, at the basement.

I don't quite see this being solely about epistemology, that's only a part of it. Second, your response is like a politician. You answered without saying anything.

 

Jump in, go for it.

 

I'm waiting........

[Legion]

I have tried to address this kind of thing before here... http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/37003-the-modeling-relation/

 

No one seemed interested.

[LNC]

Well, the confusion may be in what LNC believes. He believes all people are bad and religion makes them good. He starts off with an ad hominem and goes from there...backwards.

 

You are quite wrong in assessing my beliefs. I don't believe that all people are bad or that religion makes them good. I believe that all people were created good and that God actually said, very good; however, through man's rebellion, we became corrupted in our nature and separated from God by doing so. Because of the we have the tendency to do evil acts (which explains the existence of evil in the first place, since if people were inherently good by nature and not corrupted, we would not see evil acts being committed).

 

Religion doesn't make people good. In fact, most religion is just a mask over the sin problem that we do have. People use religion as a way of appearing to be good, when in their hearts, they really aren't. Only God can resolve our sin problem and change our hearts and minds.

 

So, you are quite wrong in your assessment and wrong in your application of logic as I have committed no ad hominem.

 

LNC

[LNC]

This is what everyone does LNC...states a preference. Even you. You want to put it onto some outside entity to make it have reality regardless of whether that reality is actually reality or not. It still ends up being the same. People prefer one or the other. Why do you have to make it so difficult?

 

However, preferences are not an objective basis for morality, they are only stating personal likes and dislikes. One person prefers vanilla and another prefers chocolate, however, neither is objectively right or wrong in his/her preference. Is that the way that you believe morality works? One person prefers to help his neighbor and the other prefers to steal from his neighbor, but is either really right or wrong or is it merely up to personal preference? That is why this is an important issue, but it isn't difficult to figure out.

 

LNC

[par4dcourse]

This is what everyone does LNC...states a preference. Even you. You want to put it onto some outside entity to make it have reality regardless of whether that reality is actually reality or not. It still ends up being the same. People prefer one or the other. Why do you have to make it so difficult?

 

However, preferences are not an objective basis for morality, they are only stating personal likes and dislikes. One person prefers vanilla and another prefers chocolate, however, neither is objectively right or wrong in his/her preference. Is that the way that you believe morality works? One person prefers to help his neighbor and the other prefers to steal from his neighbor, but is either really right or wrong or is it merely up to personal preference? That is why this is an important issue, but it isn't difficult to figure out.

 

LNC

 

 

Objective/subjective, yin/yang, real/imagined.

You, LNC, like my grandpa used to say, are going around your elbow to get to your asshole.

Brass tacks: Prove your god exists anywhere but your mind, or shut the fuck up.

[LNC]

LNC thinks he knows God and the Mind of God. Since God can't be proven or disproven, he doesn't really know the Guy In The Sky, or what The Guy thinks. So, you are right NotBlinded!

 

He can't see that the effects of ethical thought and human experience have created morals the are objective to humanity. Laws and rules exist and we follow them (for a simple example of objectivity). It takes feelings of empathy and compassion with reason and human experience to create morals. DOH! LNC can't admit it without crushing his dream.

 

First, you must define what you mean by proven/disproven. One can show evidence for the existence of God, which I have done in these forums, but whether something can be proved depends upon the standard of proof. However, I can still know some of the mind of God since he has revealed it. But the question is whether objective morality exists, not necessarily what those moral principles are at this point. Let's deal with one issue at a time.

 

You cannot say that we have created objective morality, that is oxymoronic. When the subject creates a standard, it is a subjective standard by definition. For a standard to be objective, it would have to be true independent of whether anyone thought it was or not. Apparently, you misunderstand the concepts of objective and subjective.

 

LNC

[agnosticator]

I believe that all people were created good and that God actually said, very good; however, through man's rebellion, we became corrupted in our nature and separated from God by doing so.

 

You are really saying that after the fall, we ARE bad (sinners, evil in nature). So, all people alive are not good.

 

 

Because of the we have the tendency to do evil acts (which explains the existence of evil in the first place, since if people were inherently good by nature and not corrupted, we would not see evil acts being committed).

 

Again, you believe we are evil by nature.

 

Religion doesn't make people good...People use religion as a way of appearing to be good,...

 

This, I agree with.

[par4dcourse]

LNC thinks he knows God and the Mind of God. Since God can't be proven or disproven, he doesn't really know the Guy In The Sky, or what The Guy thinks. So, you are right NotBlinded!

 

He can't see that the effects of ethical thought and human experience have created morals the are objective to humanity. Laws and rules exist and we follow them (for a simple example of objectivity). It takes feelings of empathy and compassion with reason and human experience to create morals. DOH! LNC can't admit it without crushing his dream.

 

First, you must define what you mean by proven/disproven. One can show evidence for the existence of God, which I have done in these forums, but whether something can be proved depends upon the standard of proof. However, I can still know some of the mind of God since he has revealed it. But the question is whether objective morality exists, not necessarily what those moral principles are at this point. Let's deal with one issue at a time.

 

You cannot say that we have created objective morality, that is oxymoronic. When the subject creates a standard, it is a subjective standard by definition. For a standard to be objective, it would have to be true independent of whether anyone thought it was or not. Apparently, you misunderstand the concepts of objective and subjective.

 

LNC

 

Former president Clinton would be so proud. All you've proven is that you know how to type.

 

As with any theory, repeatable, verifiable proof. Anything. Mr. Randi will give you a million dollars!

[agnosticator]

First, you must define what you mean by proven/disproven.

 

You know what is meant by this. It's obvious.

 

One can show evidence for the existence of God, which I have done in these forums, but whether something can be proved depends upon the standard of proof. However, I can still know some of the mind of God since he has revealed it.

 

Are you serious? The only one you have convinced is yourself! I can prove you exist, but no one can prove God does. Where is God? What is He? Immaterial doesn't explain it.

 

 

You cannot say that we have created objective morality, that is oxymoronic. When the subject creates a standard, it is a subjective standard by definition. For a standard to be objective, it would have to be true independent of whether anyone thought it was or not. Apparently, you misunderstand the concepts of objective and subjective.

 

 

Objective:

adj.

 

1. Of or having to do with a material object.

2. Having actual existence or reality.

3. a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See synonyms at fair1.

b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

 

Morals are based upon the human animal and is demonstrated by laws humans agree with. This is the short simplistic version of morality. It is beyond the individual in an objective sense.