Is there a God?

[sushiboat]

pansy,

1. The Jeffrey Dahmers of the world are not rationally selfish naturalists. They are people who have serious defects in their brains. In other words, they are looney tunes, woowoo crazies.

2. People don't automatically resist their nature merely because they become aware of it. Freedom is not an end in itself. It is something we want as a means to living a good life, which is defined by human nature.

3. Competition is natural, but so is cooperation. Cooperation and society are built into us. What would we lose without group living? Sex, conversation, sports, art, technology, science, large-scale economies, and the list goes on and on. You overemphasize rational and conscious choice, but even then, how many people would consciously choose to give up all those things?

4. Your understanding of anti-social behavior is unrealistic. Look in prisons for naturalistic atheists. Look in countries that have populations with scientific education. You won't find any support for your hypothesis.

5. The truth doesn't become less true merely because you don't like the consequences. Even if society would fall apart if more people believed what I believe, what you really are recommending is the Noble Lie. Indoctrinate the masses with patently untrue beliefs so that they will behave themselves.

Which one of us has a more positive view of human beings? You, who predict that knowledge of our true selves would lead to chaos and serial murder? Or I, who think that people will pretty much live their lives as they always have?

[pansy]

sushiboat said:

pansy,

1. The Jeffrey Dahmers of the world are not rationally selfish naturalists. They are people who have serious defects in their brains. In other words, they are looney tunes, woowoo crazies.

2. People don't automatically resist their nature merely because they become aware of it. Freedom is not an end in itself. It is something we want as a means to living a good life, which is defined by human nature.

3. Competition is natural, but so is cooperation. Cooperation and society are built into us. What would we lose without group living? Sex, conversation, sports, art, technology, science, large-scale economies, and the list goes on and on. You overemphasize rational and conscious choice, but even then, how many people would consciously choose to give up all those things?

4. Your understanding of anti-social behavior is unrealistic. Look in prisons for naturalistic atheists. Look in countries that have populations with scientific education. You won't find any support for your hypothesis.

5. The truth doesn't become less true merely because you don't like the consequences. Even if society would fall apart if more people believed what I believe, what you really are recommending is the Noble Lie. Indoctrinate the masses with patently untrue beliefs so that they will behave themselves.

Which one of us has a more positive view of human beings? You, who predict that knowledge of our true selves would lead to chaos and serial murder? Or I, who think that people will pretty much live their lives as they always have?

1. Dahmer wanted a completely compliant sexual partner and thought people tasted like beef. If human beings are strictly bodies, why shouldn't he kill them, have sex with their dead bodies and eat them? What exactly makes it wrong or insane?

2. Whose nature? Your nature? My nature? Jeffrey Dahmer's nature? You will concede there is considerable variability in human nature won't you? If we are only physical bodies and nothing more, where does the notion of right and wrong come in and how do you define insane?

3. What about the changes that have already occurred in human society? We have gone from living in tribal groups, to extended family groups, to nuclear family groups, to fragmented family groups and in many cases as solitary individuals. Family bonds that were once required to obtain such things as sex and a place in the community no longer are.

4. You don't see the trend I have described in our society towards increasing isolation and alienation? Towards increasing competition, decreasing cooperation? We are destroying our habitat at a dizzying rate, wreaking havoc on future generations - this doesn't strike you as selfish and somewhat nihilistic?

5. The Noble Lie is that science is God. Science does not have all the answers and cannot save us from self-destruction. We suffer from the delusion in this society that the man in the lab coat has all the answers. That isn't even how science works. Science is about asking questions, not about having all the answers. Science is only a tool, we have to decide how to use it.

And lastly, did I say that I had a more positive view of human beings? No, I did not and I do not. If the human species abandons any concept of spirituality I have little hope for its future actually.

"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality." Albert Einstein

(This is fun. Thanks for playing. ;D)

[sushiboat]

1. If people in a particular society do anti-social things that destroy themselves, they will no longer exist in any great numbers. The societies that don't engage in self-destructive practices will survive and prosper. Right and wrong are what works and what doesn't work, respectively, and what works will tend to outlast what doesn't work.

2. Right and wrong are defined at the species level. Certain actions tend toward survival and reproduction. This also includes concern for other species, on whom we depend, and for the environment which sustains us.

3. Societies change and not always for the better. However, you haven't made a convincing case that naturalism -- a very rare belief -- is to blame. The people involved in these societal changes are, with only rare exceptions, religious and have an unscientific understanding of the world.

4. Again, you haven't shown that naturalism is to blame. There are many more likely culprits -- capitalism, extreme individualism, easier travel, consumerism, etc. The changes you describe happened among people who did not have a scientific understanding of the world, so how can such an understanding be to blame?

5. I certainly haven't claimed that science is God. As you say, it is a tool -- a tool for understanding ourselves and our universe. It happens to be the most successful tool we have to date.

The Noble Lie is a concept from Plato's Republic. Plato described what he considered to be the ideal social order. This utopia had a hierarchy, and he understood that the lower classes might be unhappy with their lot. Thus, he came up with a doctrine that different people were made of different substances -- gold, silver, and iron. He didn't believe it himself, but he thought such a fiction was necessary to avoid social unrest.

[pansy]

1. With our present rapidly increasing world human population we could support a very significant number of Dahmers without noticing a blip in the curve, in fact increasing warfare which will take millions of lives will undoubtedly occur as we compete for ever rarer resources. If we are to accept a utilitarian definition of what is right and what is wrong, then the more Dahmers the better. Move out more of the meat-puppets and improve the quality of life of those self-serving humans left behind.

2. If right and wrong are defined on a species level, then destroying the weak and infirm would be right. Why don't we do that? Or do we?

3. Our society is now guided by science, not religion. Scientists argue that every human thought, behavior and emotion can be traced to some biological mechanism. It is a common and widespread belief in our society now that there is no spiritual reality because it cannot be scientifically proven. This is even a common belief among churchgoers.

4. It's my contention that scientific consensus guides the belief systems of the majority of people in our society today. Science made the changes possible that have altered human experience so radically. As a result, humans now look to scientists for their answers, direction and salvation.

5. I know you did not claim that science is God, however you opened the door to that discussion when you stated that you could not believe in a human spirit if it isn't a biological entity. This belief is based on a prejudice that nothing can exist unless it can be proven scientifically to exist.

I'm aware that the Noble Lie has a specific historic usage, but what I'm saying is that the ruling class of today's society is quelling arguments and unrest by invoking science instead of God. Science is the new God. Everything is a science now: military science, police science, medical science, etc. And you can't argue with science. But what I'm saying is we should - we should argue with science. Especially bad science.

[wonkothesane]

We may be meat, but we are talking/typing meat!!!
It might all just be an accident but we could make it a pretty good one!


Whether there is a god or not- we invent the day to day rules. Our language and it's meaning are our construction- we decide to call dahmer a lunatic and that there was something wrong with his brain- there was nothing wrong with his brain, it made his body fuction and allowed him to live which is what your brain is for- again what is rational is societies invention- it was quite rational to burn people for withchcraft and it used to be quite rational to lock up unmarried mothers in institutions.

Face it we are a primitive, scared species like every other on this planet. We really need to think about where we want to go, we have the ability to do anything we want- we just have to stop waiting for a guy on a fluffy cloud to sort out the mess we created. You can not know the mind of god- not yet anyway, so we are on our own.

[GreenFerret]

Pansy, your arguments don't make sense. How does being solely chemical/biological in any way lead to people being "just meat" or having a right to kill one another?

If you mean that in the case that humans are only chemical/biological then there are no after-death consequences for killing, depraved or anti-social behavior--then yeah... ok ... there is no reason not to go around eating people. But that doesn't mean that normally-functioning people would do it, or should do it without consequences.

Why, even if people are made by a god or are spiritual beings, would it be "wrong" to go around eating people, except that it doesn't work within the human society in which it occurs? Considering that any victim would find himself in an infinite paradise quicker than you can say "mmm, tastes like chicken?"

Eating other people is "wrong" because it's generally not going to be accepted by the group. It's "wrong" because it goes against the rights of the individual that we have to keep things more "fair--" ie it makes us feel more protected as individuals (if you can't eat your neighbor, at least he can't eat you either). It is "wrong" because eating your fellow man is a way to spread disease.

Being solely chemical/biological, and believing that this is the case, does not automatically lead to depravity. I'm agnostic bordering on atheist, and I feel that the best thing an individual can aspire to is to "do unto others what you would have done to you"--altruistic (or as close as it comes) behavior. Not because a magical force connects me to other humans, with their big ol' animal brains--but because it is important to being part of society that every person NOT do only for himself. And empathy, which some individuals lack--sociopaths, I believe are this way?--allows a person to mentally put themselves in another person's shoes, and help keep them from enjoying torture, killing, etc.

If I ever snap my twig and decide to start chowin' down on people brains, what will worry me most is getting caught and punished by my fellow man--not smote by god or condemned to hell. I mean, if I were reeeeally sorry, it wouldn't matter who I'd killed anyway, no? Supposedly in the spiritual sense, that would make it all better. In which case I'm left to wonder if it would be all that bad to kill and eat people anyway?

*note I'm not actually condoning human-eating here, for those who wondered... Well unless they're already dead and known for a fact to be sterile, free of all disease, etc etc--not that I would eat it, because I'd think it gross gross gross ewwwww... but if someone was dead anyway and his body went to the soylent green factory and someone else wanted to pick up a pack of the stuff for dinner, I wouldn't be too dismayed about it. The DEAD body of a human--that, to me, is the closest you'll get to "just" meat.

[Tal]

haha, good post, even if i disagree with most of it

reject29 said:

so lemmie address some questions here. just what the heck is faith anyway? Faith is where everyone else is saying one thing and One man says something different. faith is a keen mind ever observing the obvious that everyone else has overlooked. faith
the great detective walking in and immedietly spotting the one clue that hundreds
of forensic experts missed! i know *some (relogious) people* make it sound
mystical and magical but it is really just logic and common sense. apparently
a phd doesnt help as many atheists prove every day.

The analogy beteen faith and a detective is wrong, because faith doesn't look for facts, it looks for ideas and then makes up facts to fit them. (e.g. get your religion set up, then write a religious doctrine, find some 'miracles' and appoint some saints with mystical powers)

reject29 said:

ok. now, now my respose to gsteve and talisman
is this- once upon a time there was 'concrete' scientific evidence that the world was flat.
believe it or not....sometimes the facts dont tell the whole story! :-o esp if a
man's mind is already made up. And esp if youre only looking at one group of facts.

There was never concrete evidence that the world was flat, and contrary to popular belief, the idea of the world being round has existed since Ancient Greece (and probably before then), not since the enlightenment.

True any conception of a flat world was based on empirical observation of the world, and science still uses this method, but at least people were using evidence to make that incorrect assumption. With Gods you not using any evidence.

reject29 said:

On the other hand to be only ‘wise as serpents’ is to be like our athiest buddies. Beliveing nothing at all unless they can analyze it under a microscope or count it at the bank. They do however believe in little green men/women(?) (asexuals?) also derrick you’re damnn right ‘spirituality (long word to  type) unites religion divides’ big big big difference there. One that atheists just cant seem to understand. No matter how much someone tries to tell them.

On the contrary belief and knowledge are different things. I can believe anything, but I can't claim to know something without good evidence (lets leave aside the philosophy of knowledge for the time being). I can believe in aliens basing my belief on the size of the universe, the diversity of life on earth and of course that fact we exist. I can't know aliens exist, but i can believe they do based on fairly solid grounds.

I can't make the same claim for God. It's just an idea and nothing more. I can't say that one God exists here, therefore other Gods may well exist. I have no evidence, no reason to believe that even one God exists.

As for spirituality, I really have no idea what this is. Is it just a 'feeling' one has. How does that provide evidence for Gods or for anything else, other than the possibility our biology allows for these feelings.

reject29 said:

According to scientists everything is just random events birds EVOLVED horses EVOLVED pigs EVOLVED. Basic flip of a coin roll the dice phenom. Roll the dice WE GOT APES! Roll again

Well life isn't random...it relies on a certain combination of ingredients. I admit the idea of evolution is pretty overwhelming - that so much diversity in life can just pop up seemingly out of nowhere, but again just because the idea is big and scary doesn't mean we need to find a simple cause for it all. Perhaps some things in this vast universe of ours are a bit beyond our comprehension.

reject29 said:

The final question is this: if we were meant to be here what is it we are it we are supposed to be doing?

Well I don't have an answer to why are we here. I'd suggest there is no reason - no God to give us a reason. We just are here and we're pretty insignificant in the big picture, so why should there be a reason for our existance?

[wonkothesane]

jekawa said:

Pansy, your arguments don't make sense. How does being solely chemical/biological in any way lead to people being "just meat" or having a right to kill one another?

cause we invented rights.

[wonkothesane]

jekawa said:

Pansy, your arguments don't make sense. How does being solely chemical/biological in any way lead to people being "just meat" or having a right to kill one another?

cause we invented rights.

[Paulinus]

I tried to resist putting this up I really did, from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful [as the Babel fish] could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God.

The argument goes like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn’t thought of that," and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

[GreenFerret]

wonkothesane said:

jekawa said:

Pansy, your arguments don't make sense. How does being solely chemical/biological in any way lead to people being "just meat" or having a right to kill one another?

cause we invented rights.

Exactly..... Wait, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? lol

[Samantha]

I talked to him earlier. Aquarod showed me the way. Well a link.

[pansy]

reject29, i don't care if i agree with you or not, i absolutely insist you must post more often! ;D

[Tal]

reject, This 'harmony' you speak of isn't the same thing as love. 'Harmony' is just a fancy way of saying everything in nature adapts itself so it all works together in cycles and processes. If the cycle is disrupted by another force (e.g. man) then it will adjust itself and harmony will be restored, though it may no look like it did previously.

Love is just a clever little biological trick to get two ceatures to produce and look after offspring. Some species, were the offspring don't need much looking after don't have love, but have instinct, which just gets them to mate. it's safe to say I don't believe all this heavenly love nonesense.

[pansy]

talisman said:

Love is just a clever little biological trick to get two ceatures to produce and look after offspring.

oh poo...where's your romantic sensibility?
what kind of poet are you anyway?