…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
I did go too low, apparently. The tally is now up near 160.
phoodoo,
No, the point is that theism, good; atheism, bad (or at least necessarily amoral), a theory I’ve seen pushed on this very site, isn’t a very good theory. You and mung shouldn’t take it personally. Rather, theists generally, should just consider what such acts tell us about that theory.
walto,
Well, if either of us had ever proposed such a theory, then you might have a point. Otherwise….
I have however proposed the theory (fact) that atheism is stupid really , given the evidence.
I can personally testify to the fact that each and every time BarryA attributed a school shooting or similar event to the advocacy of Darwinism, Mung was in the forefront of those challenging him.
Here’s a link…wait…it’s got to be here somewhere…here…no…maybe here…no…
I’ll get back to you…
Exactly. That’s similar to the pet peeve I have when people imply that if you don’t believe you were created for someone else’s purpose you don’t have a purpose. It’s fallacious, it seems to me. I can have a purpose for my life that is not the same as the purpose for which I was created – so it follows that I can still have a purpose for my life if I reject the notion that someone created me for some purpose of their own.
Who can dispute that the eight people who went out on to the Paris streets armed to the teeth and with suicide bombs strapped on were not purposeful?
I wonder what support and encouragement they needed and received, from turning a blind eye to indoctrination, shelter and supply.
So when somebody points out that a particular school shooter is a Darwinist it becomes fair game to lump Christians in with folks who want to kill Christians just like the school shooter did?
Not sure I follow the logic on that one.
peace
Glad you are safe, Alan! (Not sure where you live, but I was wondering)
Then they have voluntarily removed themselves from any rational discussion.
Do you honestly believe that any school shooting has ever actually, really been about ‘Darwinism’?
The irony, Gregory, is that my own personal philosophy is profoundly anti-hate, and, I think (and hope) that is evident – it’s actually what underlies the principles of this site. Sure people get angry with each other, but I am not convinced that any more, or or less, anger is shown here from theists to atheists than the other way round. And in any case, as I’ve said, the title of the site is not about atheism. It’s about an evidence-based and contingent approach to understanding.
I didn’t even know that “skeptic” had “atheist” as an alternative meaning, when I chose it, and in any case “skeptical” does not have that connotation as far as I am aware. I wanted a “skeptical zone” to be a place where people weighed up evidence as dispassionately and disinterestedly (in the old-fashioned sense) as possible. I like evidence, and I like to retain the possibility that I am mistaken. It gives me a positive thrill to find that my previous understanding was faulty and is now better!
EL said:
I don’t know of anyone – much less any theists – that believe that anyone was created for someone else’s purpose. Did you just say this nonsense for some kind of cheap talking point rhetorical value? That doesn’t really seem to be your style.
You’re right.
Not quite sure why this is “low”, Mung. As far as we know, the attacks were carried out by a group of non-atheists whose declared intention of ridding the world of people who do not believe their particular form of theism. That includes, as walto says, those “were (possibly) insufficiently theist or the wrong kind of theist.”
His point, surely, is that “dehumanizing” is not the prerogative of atheists.
Alan Fox said:
The French government’s immigration and refugee policies, and an unarmed police force and unarmed civilian population gives them all the encouragement and support they needed.
No, not at all,
Are you saying that theists do NOT believe that they were created by God for some purpose?
That God just did it accidentally or to while away an idle moment?
While atheism/Darwinism consistently dehumanizes people by largely insisting they are nothing more than adapted animals with an illusory sense of “self” and “free will”, some forms of theism are just as dehumanizing. The important lesson here is that one must choose their worldview carefully.
People can use aspects of various worldviews to justify doing the evil in their heart; the question is whether the worldview itself, for the most part, facilitates such justifications. There’s not much behavior that isn’t logically justifiable under atheism/Darwinism or under a god not presumed to be fundamentally good and rational.
EL said:
I can hardly speak on behalf of all theists, but IMO the most well-argued current and historical theists would certainly not classify god, the ground of existence, as “someone else”.
So, you were attempting to make a serious point? Really? What a profoundly superficial concept of theism you utilize – no wonder you abandoned it.
Yes, far better to let them die. Fucking refugees, who needs em!
You lack of compassion is not unexpected.
Seyz the guy who’s never read the bible.
Could you name a behaviour you are talking about that is not also seen in the bible?
Well, I agree with that last point. But your use of “atheism/Darwinism” with a conjoining forward slash is both odd and irritating. Not only are they not the same thing, but they are not even the same category of thing. It’s perfectly possible to be a theist Darwinist as it is to be an atheist non-Darwinist. Darwinism is a scientific theory.
And your contention that atheism (I’ll leave Darwinism out of it, because it is irrelevant) entails the insistence that “they are nothing more than adapted animals with an illusory sense of “self” and “free will”,” is simply wrong. I, and many other atheists do NOT insist that “self” and “free will” are illusory, nor that what people are is “nothing more” than an adapted animal. I think we are a great deal more.
Or even a god assumed to be both good and rational, given that a great many people define “good” as “what god wants”, William Lane Craig, for one.
Indeed it is precisely the point that many of us atheists make that we recognise what is good by means other than trying to discern “what God wants”, and many good theists also discern God in what is good, not good in what is of alleged to be of God.
Euthyphro’s dilemma is pretty damn easy to solve.
OK, then simply rephrase the anthropomorphism: a being capable of intentional action.
Does your concept of theism NOT incorporate the belief that God is a being capable of intentional action?
wtf?
And atheists are supposed to be the “dehumanising” ones?
Omagain said:
Then asks that same guy:
Surely you can see the problem here?
Raw compassion is just a part of recognizing and honoring our humanity.
Indeed. And atheists are just as capable of exercising compassion, and recognizing and honoring our humanity as theists. Which is, indeed, why they are often called, and call themselves “humanists”.
Yes, I can. The problem is you are too shit scared to answer my questions.
As long as William has his, the rest of the world can burn.
What’s your solution to the refugee problem in Europe? Send em all back?
EL said:
“A being” is not nearly the same as “the ground of all being”. Again, I can see why you ditched such a shallow theism. Any reasonable, intelligent person would, IMO.
No. I don’t believe that god is “a being”; I believe that god is the being which all “being-ness” exists within, and is intentionality itself (although not limited to just that, as god is also “good” itself). So saying god is “capable of intentional action” is derived from a problematic conceptualization of god.
Do you and other atheists here really think the best “god” argument/worldview is actually like an “Odin” or “Ra” view of god? Well, no wonder you abandoned such views – that’s some of the reason I originally abandoned my theism.
The “problem” that I can see is that you only have part of the picture. You claim is quite specific, but given you’ve never read the bible you are missing the fact that these behaviors are condoned by the god of the bible also. Well, probably, you’ve neglected to mention specifics (as usual).
So your point is really no point at all.
But go on, tell me what we should do with the tired, poor hungry refugees under your “fundamentally good and rational” scheme.
Go on, say it. You’ve identified the problem, France’s policy towards those people, but as usual you’ve forgotten to say what you’d do instead!
What does this god want *you* to do about the refugee problem in Europe? Send em back to the war zone they came from? Or what?
It’s just a few more steps to abandon it totally. Which any reasonable, intelligent person would, IMO.
Define “good”. Then explain why you’d sent people back to die rather than give them a home.
Reducing the intelligence and moral worth of people we consider “outsiders” is often linked to discrimination and is understood to be an important mechanism in the lead up to many atrocities in human history.
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/why-don-t-we-feel-more-guilty-about-eating-animals
Omagain asks:
Not at all. However, with a disarmed population, a disarmed police force, and no good system set up for assimilation/employment, all you’re doing is asking for trouble. The problem lies not in the refugees themselves, per se, but in the French. My policy would be assimilate and go to work or go somewhere else. However, a national policy of embracing “diversity” to the point of cultural balkanization is just going to lead to escalating internal conflict.
Which is why they need to assimilate into the culture that is taking them in. Unless, of course, you plan on changing human nature? You’re making my argument for me.
OMagain said:
I think you’re pretty much incapable of understanding my concept of god. If god is all of space/time existence and being, what could god possibly “want” from me? What a bizarre notion.
OMagain,
How am I supposed to answer questions about the bible when I’ve never read it, and am not even a Christian? Why even ask me about the bible? You’re not making any sense. You do realize that “theist” doesn’t mean “Christian”, don’t you?
What a solution, arm everybody. This shows the depths of your delusional thinking.
How’s that armed to the teeth police force working out for you in the USA? Not so well….
What do you know about it? Given that at least one of the people who carried out the attack has a Syrian passport, it would have made no difference.
I see. And you call what just happened “trouble” do you? And it would have been prevented had everyone been armed? Whatever.
You’ve failed to say what you would do with the refugees in Europe right now. You don’t want to send them all back so what do you want to do with them?
How superficial. But if you only have a superficial understanding of the issues, superficial solutions seem appropriate. Oh, but there’s no jobs, so what then? Oh, but they can’t assimilate as they are living in the poor part of town where only other refugees live.
Things are simple to the simple.
Yes, so we should strip migrants of their culture, language and everything that remains of the land they left and enforce whatever we see fit in their place.
You seem very ignorant of the history of your own country.
It’s you that is reducing the moral worth of people that don’t assimilate or have not yet had the chance to, so you can justify ignoring their plight. If they don’t behave exactly as you think they should behave, they don’t deserve your compassion. I get it.
Very good excuse to avoid answering the question. 10/10. I’m sure Breitbart is looking down at you, smiling.
That may be true, William, but your concept of god seems fairly sui generis. That’s fine, but you then also seem to want to use your own theism as an exemplar of theism to contrast with atheism.
Unless we know just what you mean by your own brand of theism personally I don’t know whether I am a-theistic with regard to it or not.
If it’s not a God who could possible “want” anything from me (unlike the Christian God, or most other gods), and it’s not a being who is capable of intentional action (as you seemed to scoff at), but is, rather, “the ground of being” – then I am probably not a-theistic about it at all, I just don’t happen to call what you call “God”, “God”.
So tbh I think the ball is in your court on this one.
You made a claim that just about any behavior is logically justifiable under atheism. Your point only has relevance if religions do not condone those same behaviors. Your ignorance regarding other religions can be quickly cleared up simply by reading their holy books. It’s not my problem you are not a strong reader.
So according to William, the attack we’ve just witnessed could have been avoided if immigrants to France had simply properly assimilated and gone to work, and if France had armed their police and citizens.
Simplistic solutions for simplistic people.
Over 10,000 people a year die in America due to gun violence. Last time I checked, 10,000 > ~200.
EL said:
Being “just as capable” isn’t the question; the question is what does the worldview or belief accommodate/facilitate/endorse? I think that atheists are often more compassionate than theists, but unless that compassion is regulated by reason and a broader, coherent moral framework, it is often both destructive and self-destructive and ends up not helping anyone. There is a difference between doing what is right and obeying one’s compassion. Often they are at odds with each other.
Without a proper form of theism and a spiritual infrastructure, humanism is just a bunch of people agreeing to behave a certain way because it suits their particular personalities, with no fundamental grounding other than “because we feel like it, because we say so”. That same principle can be used to justify anything. So can the “command authority” versions of theism. Both are recipes for disaster, even if individual atheists and individual command authority theists can be kind, forgiving and compassionate.
The debate is about the worldview, not what individuals who call themselves this or that are capable of doing.
William, today:
Not only is William wrong about other theists — he’s wrong about himself.
William in 2013:
LOL.
I don’t understand why people like William never seem to understand that if everybody has their own conception of what god is then probably nobody does. I guess they all think it’s an incredible co-incidence that they happen to have the right conception of god.
Here’s a thought experement. Delete everybody’s memories of their religion, except for the fact they are a theist. Then see what religion they then pick from the many available, and have them justify it. Then restore their original memories.
I’m sure they’d all become atheists or agnostics quickly.
Or perhaps we should have a thread where William and FMM slug it out, each attempting to justify why their idea of god is the right one. But people like that are immune to argument, they’d just both walk off at the end considering themselves the victor, no matter what happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Christs_of_Ypsilanti
And it works exactly the same for theists, of any religion! So your point is no point at all.
That’s the trouble with making it up. You might make it up a different way next week.
lol