"ask an atheist" thread

[Sizzla3000]

Do Athiest have a place of worship?

[alexey]

There are a large number of possibilities, which means they CAN be different, and (ignoring that most of the atheist I know have had their view points of good and bad shaped by a society where the majority of the people did believe and god) I'm athestic with respect to any reason's why they should be the same.

Basic probability tells me if there are a lot of options and there is no driving mechanism to make two things the same, they will likely be different.

We are talking about figuring out what people/societies SHOULD do if there is or if there is no god. I see following options:

1) There is no god - people/societies should do good.

2) There is a benevolent god - people/societies should do good.

3) There is an evil god - people/societies should do good and tell that evil god to go **** himself.

---------- Post added January-9th-2013 at 02:49 PM ----------

Do Athiest have a place of worship?

There are various humanist and secular organizations that provide meeting places, community events, discussions, etc, but there are not enough of them. There are also Unitarian Universalists, but I get an impression those have a New Age spiritualism woo woo flavor.

[PeterMP]

We are talking about figuring out what people/societies SHOULD do if there is or if there is no god. I see following options:

1) There is no god - people/societies should do good.

2) There is a benevolent god - people/societies should do good.

3) There is an evil god - people/societies should do good and tell that evil god to go **** himself.

Okay, go back to my earlier comment about the arrangement of societies with respect to sex.

In which case, do you think the society that practiced that arrangement thought it wasn't doing good?

For a long time in this country, the majority of women in this country didn't think they should have the right to vote (and more recently, I've seen the samething with a poll of Kuwaiti women). Do you think they thought that it was wrong?

With respect to your comments, my statement could be rephrased as I don't see why the two societies should consider "good" to be very similar and end up with wanting societies that are very similar.

[redskins4ever28]

All I have to say to athiests is that I respect your opinion and I am not here to preach. But I do feel bad that you have not experienced Jesus in your life. God Bless you all, and I hope one day you feel his presence like I have.

[Jumbo]

But I do feel bad that you have not experienced Jesus in your life. God Bless you all, and I hope one day you feel his presence like I have.

Right. That kind of (even if subconsciously) self-serving-dressed-up-as"nice" message has always evoked such warn connections for non-believers, every one of the umpteenth-to-the-umpteenth-power times it's been offered. <borekn grin smiley>. Edification for the future: next time if you stop right before this "But", you'll achieve a much more positive result to the audience you're addressing. But I don't mean to be just busting on you, I took it as sincere.

Now...even the veterans among you won't believe THIS one (<another grin smiley and >>> :evilg:). For those curious, this was done in well over an hour between appts, (while eating) and most of that was fixing 6,345 typos.

I wanted to comment because you've brought this up twice in this thread.

I often bring it up when such conversation is raised. I have my reasons, of course, and find them pertinent. The range of response is (when there is one) often revealing/informative to me. I thought you had a genuine, thoughtful, and productive response.

In the end, I guess my answer to this question and many other questions are unfulfilling for many people

Because in the end, I have to admit that I don't know.

It wasn't a question, though. The phrase you quoted related to the beginning of the sentence--"I think the most interesting thing of recent development..."---and it was just part of some listed descriptions to finish the thought. I think it's great that in your reading, you found a question in there and tried to answer it.

I do know some about other types of Christianity and other world religions, especially I've known quite a few Hindus so have had a good number of conversations with them.

In the end, Christianity just seems to fit me. Now, I'll freely admit that is likely because I was raised in a Christian house hold.

I was raised (mainly, and until 13 or so) in a Christian household aslo, (just one note I've mentioned here often is of having a close cousin who was Jesuit priest most of his adult life) and there is a great deal of the content of all the "Abrahamic religions" that certainly is embraceable by me---more than even at just the level of "being of western European culture" descent and environment.

Just as family-shaping dynamics are often <usually> multi-generational in their forming and "passed on" to varying degrees, so too are the broader cultural influences on individuals. Even in "rebellion" (strong identity differentiation) to any norm, that rebellion is influenced ( can be almost determined, in many cases) by the shaping. You don't "go Buddhist" with at least one primary driver being dissatisfaction with the norm, if the norm is Buddhism

It makes sense to me, and fits with how I think such things as religions most likely form, that I find a great deal of congruence in most of them with each other (despite the wars between their believers), and my own views on many matters.

I think it is worth noting when discussing our worldviews, that our (this culture) conversation on the matter, just like our terms (atheist/agnostic/believer/monotheist/pagan etc) can be relatively alien to others--this all isn't "universal" to humans, though trying to explain the mystifying and significant things that are unknown (at a particular time to a particular people--whether lightning or "love"), seems to be quite universal, which again makes sense to me, just in biological evolutionary terms and looking at our brain development and sensory options.

There may be more commonality between Abrahamic religions than to Hinduism, or Confucianism (which like Buddhism, is usually held as more an ethical and philosophical system that a western religion-type deity-based construct), but it might be said there is still more commonality within all of those systems then there is to them with those of some NA or Pacific Islander or remote SA or African tribal cultures. So "seeking answers to that which weighs heavily upon us", can lead to quite differing forms, even in their base similarity of drivers and needs/desires seeking to be met.

If one wonders what this all has to do with the topic, it's pretty common material for people of more agnostic/atheist thinking, or at least those who actually do a lot of thinking on the matter.

The thing that I find solace in is that the Bible is pretty clear that it isn't my job to worry about it too much. I don't get to be the final judge. While Christians are called to spread the word, we aren't required to continually repeat the same message to unreceptive audiences.

The first sentence especially stood out to me. I read material in the Bible that suggests people should behave differently than they do in many ways (and I’m not talking about traditional “sinning”). I am used to, especially in my profession, people (including very intelligent ones) thinking they are “a certain way” while behaving in a way that seems quite different to most of the folks around them.

I also am very familiar with how many people react to having important beliefs of theirs seemingly undermined by others, or key aspects of their self-identity made to appear “lesser than” in some way to them, even if they don’t “realize” they’re reacting out of such a space, or to what degree. I mention this because it too is relevant to some of the common land mines to work around in getting the best out of these topics.

In both atheists and Christians (keeping it to this forum) of varying type, I have seen over the years what appears to be a fairly invested agenda, that may take many dominant behavioral forms, or a mix thereof----compulsive, dogged, angry, controlled, perseverant, stubborn, crazy, wiseass, insecure etc.----that many folks have in “arguing down” one view or the other, more than seeking genuine understanding of different views. That's one reason why I liked the idea of this thread.

"When you go into a house, stay there until it is time to leave. If the people in the town will not welcome you, go outside the town and shake their dust off of your feet. This will be a warning to them."

And from my understanding, Hinduism is simillar on that front.

Now, I guess to an agnostic/atheist or somebody of another religion that might be and unfullfilling answer. However, to me, it is better than claiming I have answers that I don't have and just leading people in circles.

The last sentence there is another standout to me. I think, again, we deal in matters that involve self-awareness, and accurate or imagined knowledge of others motives, among others aspects of personal psychology. Many folks do exactly what they say others shouldn't do in these matters, while swearing they don’t do it (a common feature in political threads, not coincidentally).

Many people, especially in sensitive matters of self-identity, will exaggerate the undesirable behavior/position in “the other side” and minimize the same in theirs. It’s as old and common among humans as farting. The trick isn’t in “eliminating” it, but being aware of it and managing it . :pfft:

Additionally, I will note that many who read the Bible, take proselytizing as a Christian God-instructed duty in very energetic and forceful ways (something we have heard in the media that is becoming more common among atheists) while other Christians follow much less ‘in your face” approaches.

To me, the more interesting questions are what should we do if there is a god (and I'll happily discuss the other world's religions to the best of my ability) as compared to what we should do (as a society and individuals) and what society should look like if there is not.

Why does it need to look or operate much different than it does now in our current mix of differing beliefs? For instance, I am not a Christian or a believer in any religion. I am considered by others to be a pretty moral, ethical, caring, loving, and charitable/helpful/useful member of society (go figure) with all the empirical evidence needed to support this common view of “me.”

Obviously, there are innumerable people of agnostic/atheist bent who fit within an acceptable range of desirable social positives common to our culture just as there are many religious people who don’t (and vice-versa, obviously).

Behaviors and consequences, and reacting to the consequences (a continuing recursive feedback loop as part of homeostasis, which still allows change, in any such system) were around long before the more complicated stories attempting to describe the whys and hows of their nature. They were present even before the stories existing way before the ones we usually discuss the last few thousand years. Point being, they existed independent of which of those stories is told of the hows and whys.

It is also “right there obvious” that we can have all the behaviors that we find good and bad, per cultural norm, in all the aforementioned demographics, and in a distribution that certainly supports a claim that stated membership in these actual singular demographics are not a powerful determinant. Even with membership by proper action (not just "claimed"), a law-abiding highly ethical atheist, and a scripture-abiding Christian, by their actions are both socially desirable (by our norms).

On to another aspect---cooperation (and competence in) can be as big a survival and prosperity driver for an individual, species, or system as is competition. Within social packs from wolves to monkeys, just within their kind, there are varying levels of accord and transgression among individuals. There are alliances and cliques, and individual as well as sub-group influence, all within the range of inconsequential, to helpful, to what we would call caring, affectionate, threatening, malignant, and dangerous behaviors. And I am going to assume it’s all unrelated to which ones are Buddhists, Christians, Atheists, or Scientologists. :pfft:

However, we have much more complex cognitive functioning, and to the best of our knowledge, our perceptions of existence is likely much more complex, intricate, and nuanced than theirs. However, analogies do not need to be 100% to be accurate enough and useful.

This is all reflecting another primary player in these matters--our tendency to anthropomorphize all reality (and speculated reality) and any thing in it, quite often. But I’m already “way over” here (as is often the case where I see complexity).

Very oddly (but when I really think about it not actually that surprising) to me, most people seem to think we should wind up in very similar places and that place is the general direction that society has appeared to be heading over the last 100 years or so.

All my preceding material aside, one reason I say it would be troubling to me to just pull a chord and “end religion” right now, is because one of the positive things I always have sees in religion is it has been often a primary shaping mechanism for socially benign and productive behaviors per our cultural, and most cultural, norms. For many, I think they obviously believe it is key to them. They even say so.

They’re the ones who ask me “Why would I obey the law if there is no God. Why would we even have law?“

I am left “wtf?“ Here I am a non-believer and my mind never even begins to think “Hey, there’s no God, so we should get rid of laws and ****!“ :evilg:

I don’t worry about atheists if such a plug was pulled (like all of a sudden there was hugely persuasive "proof“ there was no God). The laws, other social consequences, and their own values/choices are already what governs their level of connection (whatever it is).

I worry about the millions who apparently might feel the “main reason to behave well” or the “reason life has meaning” were to suddenly be determined to be “not true.”

Per meaning, like Roy Baumeister, and many others before and since, I think that one of the responsibilities one can take for their own life, is the giving of meaning to it. I work with some folks, when doing existential stuff, on “putting meaning into your life.” It’s something you can do in many ways of secular or spiritual nature by active choice, not just passive acceptance, just as you take action to exercise your body to be healthier in those matters.

If you have read all this, you’re freaking nuts , but I will try to reward you with humiliating personal disclosure (see, I know you guys ). I like my share of ”cool” or "impressive" things in all areas, but I also love plenty of crap. I like Taylor Swift, Avril Lavigne, and Michelle Branch, and in TV, I also really liked Smallville and I like Revenge. One of my most serious-hard-ass buddies who has known me longest, said “sometimes you like the **** teen-age girls like.” Use this as you will.

[alexey]

...

I am not sure if we are discussing the same issue. The stuff we should do, it does not change depending on whether there is a god. I suppose the process of figuring it out may change if you believe that god exists, he is benevolent, and that you can get reliable information from him...

---------- Post added January-9th-2013 at 06:21 PM ----------

All I have to say to athiests is that I respect your opinion and I am not here to preach. But I do feel bad that you have not experienced Jesus in your life. God Bless you all, and I hope one day you feel his presence like I have.

Do not feel too bad for us. A number of different totally awesome earth-shattering experiences are closed to different people depending on their beliefs, genes, upbringing, etc.

[Malapropismic Depository]

its a trap - you have to disqualify yourself as an atheist to agree to the terms of the contract.

Haha, you win, my friend

[Bang]

All I have to say to athiests is that I respect your opinion and I am not here to preach. But I do feel bad that you have not experienced Jesus in your life. God Bless you all, and I hope one day you feel his presence like I have.

right.

and we respect your belief, and we hope that one day you won't need such a ridiculous superstition as a security blanket. i'm not here to preach, but i do feel bad that you have yet to progress beyond the ignorance of people with barely more education that those who lived in caves and thought thunder was the Great Bear God ripping a stinker.

But then that would be silly of me. i mean Bear Gods are just stupid, right?

OK, so that was just me being a dick to show you what it's like from this side of the fence when one of you "pities" us.

give it a rest, please. if you respect our opinion, then don't disrespect it like that in the next breath.

~Bang

[Corcaigh]

thunder was the Great Bear God ripping a stinker.

Blasphemer! It was the Great Wild Hog God!

[The Sisko]

But I do feel bad that you have not experienced Jesus in your life. God Bless you all, and I hope one day you feel his presence like I have.

OK, this is one of my pet peeves. I'll explain why so that hopefully you'll choose to avoid saying this to people in the future. Such comments imply that non-believers or even believers of other faiths are somehow deficient, broken, or missing out on something that would make them whole when in fact they're generally quite happy and fulfilled just the way they are.

I fully understand that to you, your faith is the best thing since sliced bread and you fervently wish that everyone else could also experience the same joy. However try to look at it from our perspective. How would you feel if I said to you that I wish you could find the enlightenment, joy and freedom that I've discovered in throwing off the shackles of myth and superstition? Comments like that are loaded in a way that perhaps you might not have considered.

How do you find meaning and purpose in life?

I have found that accepting the high probability that there's no afterlife makes this fragile, limited existence more valuable to me. I find meaning and purpose in the same things you do and in fact I treasure them all the more because I accept that it's a one shot deal. So for example, because I believe that I'm not going to see the people I love again after they're gone (and vice versa) instead of putzing around with less important stuff I've made a conscious decision to spend more time with the people I love.

In short, life is good simply....because. It doesn't need an explanation or a purpose. It just is.

There is a concept called middle knowledge that many Christian philosphers are quite comfortable with and even seems consistent with much of the Bible.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/middlekn/

Generally, it is the idea that God knows of all of the possibilites and out comes, but you get to actually choose the possibility.

I had a discussion with an atheist about this once. I actually don't see a problem between free will and an omniscient God. I think of it this way. If God exists, it does so outside our sense of time and space and hence to it our "yesterday" is the same as today, tomorrow. etc. So since I know that we lost Sunday's playoff game does that somehow affect the outcome? Obviously not. Knowledge of an event doesn't necessarily equate to influence over it. Additionally if one gives credence to the multiverse hypotheses, it's quite possible that an omnipotent God created such a multiverse in which all possibilities end up playing out anyway.

[PeterMP]

The stuff we should do, it does not change depending on whether there is a god.

Why?

Yes, in both cases, people should do what's good, but is there any reason to believe what is good is the same in both cases.

Is it good for women to be able to vote or not? Are the Kuwati women are right or wrong when they say women should not be able to vote?

We are a republic because the founding fathers didn't believe in direct democracy (though we have changed the way we elect senators so it is more of a direct democracy). Is it good for people to have a direct say or should we go back to the old way of electing Senators?

[alexey]

Why?

Yes, in both cases, people should do what's good, but is there any reason to believe what is good is the same in both cases.

...

Is there any reason to believe that it's not? Would you follow a wicked god?

[PeterMP]

I had a discussion with an atheist about this once. I actually don't see a problem between free will and an omniscient God. I think of it this way. If God exists, it does so outside our sense of time and space and hence to it our "yesterday" is the same as today, tomorrow. etc. So since I know that we lost Sunday's playoff game does that somehow affect the outcome? Obviously not. Knowledge of an event doesn't necessarily equate to influence over it. Additionally if one gives credence to the multiverse hypotheses, it's quite possible that an omnipotent God created such a multiverse in which all possibilities end up playing out anyway.

I find there are several approaches to deal with the problem in ways that seem relatively acceptable to me.

Based on a previous thread, the idea of middle knowledge was likely to cause the least issues and the least debate so I went with it.

---------- Post added January-9th-2013 at 08:47 PM ----------

Is there any reason to believe that it's not?

Basic probability.

There are lot's of options..

If I have two situations and lot's of options, the likelihood the two are going to be the same in the absence of a common driving mechanism is low.

[alexey]

Basic probability.

There are lot's of options..

If I have two situations and lot's of options, the likelihood the two are going to be the same in the absence of a common driving mechanism is low.

We are not talking about probabilities of different answers. We are talking about whether existence or nonexistence of god makes any difference in what we ought to do.

I say that we are moral agents who have innate capabilities to reason about what is right and what is wrong. Do you disagree? Do you think we should allow our religion to override these innate capabilities?

[PeterMP]

I say that we are moral agents who have innate capabilities to reason about what is right and what is wrong. Do you disagree?

For such a process to be conserved through evolution over the whole human population in a manner that would have much real significance in terms of actually generating a human society would seem to me to be highly entropically unfavorable to the point that I think it would be evolutionary impossible based on the thermodynamic limits placed on life on Earth.

In addition, even if the entropic barrier was significantly lower, I'd expect conservation of such a process to not be well conserved on larger time scales (i.e. evolutionary relevant time scales) (basic evolutionary theory tells me on large time scales at the population level variation helps the species survive. what your suggesting would a limit on variation, which would likely long term lead to a evolutionarily unsuccessful species).

In addition, the probability of such a process being conserved would decrease as a function of time and the expansion of the human population (w/o first a major contraction in the variation of the human population (i.e. killing off large number of humans in a manner that is biased based on their evolutionary background)).

To support my position, I will point out that there are people that essentially are not capable of reasoning (i.e. the severely mentally disabled) (the evolutionary process can not support creating a "normally" functional human brain in every case (the entropic penalty is too high)), and there are people that can reason at some level, but we still consider incapable of determining right from wrong (the criminally insane). These are extreme cases. Even amongst "normal" people there will be a large amount of variation.

Now, if we want to consider the possiblity that humans are not just a product of evolution and there is something somewhere that interacts with humans in some manner that is not bound by the 2nd law of thermodynamics that changes my position considerably.

Do you have any evidence or can you propose a plausable mechanism by which what you seem to be suggesting is possible?

[alexey]

...

Peter, I am sure you have plentiful access to materials about evolution of humans through natural processes.

(same for evolution of morality and social norms in other animals)

[PeterMP]

Peter, I am sure you have plentiful access to materials about evolution of humans through natural processes.

(same for evolution of morality and social norms in other animals)

I do, but one of the things I know is that not everything obeys the norms and even within the norms there is variation as I've pointed out. In this world, there is a lot of variation in human morality to the point that we don't have a human society.

Do you have any evidence that what you have suggested is possible? Can you propose a plausible mechanism?

**EDIT**

And w/o a mechanism/force to cause a contraction in the variation of the human population, I expect that variation to increase as a function of time and size of the population

[alexey]

I do, but one of the things I know is that not everything obeys the norms and even within the norms there is variation as I've pointed out.

Do you have any evidence that what you have suggested is possible? Can you propose a plausable mechanism?

There is plenty of literature on evolution of morality. You are making an argument from incredulity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity.2FLack_of_imagination

e.g.

Patricia Churchland - Morality and the Mammalian Brain

[PeterMP]

There is plenty of literature on evolution of morality. You are making an argument from incredulity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity.2FLack_of_imagination

I've backed my arguments ups with facts that we observe on a regular basis.

There are people that can't reason at any sort of level. There are other people that can reason to largely be functional in society, but we still consider not capable of distinguising right from wrong.

Do these things not happen?

Why do they happen?

Because there are differences in the DNA sequence of different humans and other "initial" (i.e. at conception or even before that in terms of the sperm and egg) factors are "wrong".

Why do these things happen?

Because of brownian motion (which is itself driven by entropy) and the entropic penalty of making an exact copy of something else.

There is plenty of literature on morality, but that doesn't mean any of it supports your position.

Can you cite some?

---------- Post added January-9th-2013 at 10:28 PM ----------

Patricia Churchland - Morality and the Mammalian Brain

You've posted it before. There is nothing in there that suggest that we have the innate ability to reason right from wrong at a species level to produce a single human society.

In fact at the end, she answers a question at the end about how out-group violence is important w/ respect to in-group bonding.

**EDIT**

I'm not claiming there will be no morality from evolution. I am saying there will be significant varation in the morality.

[alexey]

...

I have to admit that at this point I have no idea what you are saying, what you think I am saying, or what you are arguing against.

I made a very simple statement - we have to do the best what we can, with faculties that we have, to figure out what we ought to do. This is the case regardless of existence or nonexistence of god.

[PeterMP]

I made a very simple statement - we have to do the best what we can, with faculties that we have, to figure out what we ought to do. This is the case regardless of existence or nonexistence of god.

That's not what you said:

"I say that we are moral agents who have innate capabilities to reason about what is right and what is wrong."

And I said you were wrong. And as evidence that you were wrong I gave you people that essentially can't reason and others that reason at some levels, but aren't consider capable of knowing right from wrong.

Now, if you want to change your previous statement, that's fine.

**EDIT**

Would you also then admit that there is going to be significant variation amongst people that are "normal"?

[alexey]

That's not what you said:

"I say that we are moral agents who have innate capabilities to reason about what is right and what is wrong."

And I said you were wrong. And as evidence that you were wrong I gave you people that essentially can't reason and others that reason at some levels, but aren't consider capable of knowing right from wrong.

Now, if you want to change your previous statement, that's fine.

**EDIT**

Would you also then admit that there is going to be significant variation amongst people that are "normal"?

Peter, people are moral agents with innate abilities to reason about what is right and what is wrong. Please stop wasting my time and clogging up the thread.

Mods please delete page 10 if you can :gus::gus:

[Jumbo]

alexy, I had written this (and another one) shortly after Peter's last post and before your most recent post. It responds to Peter, but includes you. I have been reading all along, as time allowed, and watching. And this post I wrote doesn't take sides between you and Peter as ES'ers, or on anything else beyond what it says. Nor is it to be applied to anything in your above post:

First, it seemed to me that alexy was stating we have a capacity to act on our cognition within that area we frame now as morality. I'm pretty certain he wasn't trying to claim (even trying to hang him on "innate") something so patently silly as "all human inherently have equal capacities to make moral judgement."

Relevantly, as we evolved, we created language to communicate and give structure to thoughts/feelings/events and it evolves. This becomes another feedback loop where one (language) enhances and adds to the nuance and complexity of the other (thinking) and the flow is recursive with expansion of language.

I'm not going to get into much more of the current reiteration of the old "alexy-peter dance." .

We already have covered, and for hardly the first time, examples of how "people without a belief in God" can and do choose the same moral behaviors as someone who does believe, so why argue as though what's already working might not be able to work.

Unless you (Peter) are trying to do what was said wasn't going to be the deal here and "prove" <yeah, right> in the tailgate whether the God of the Bible more likely does exist or doesn't (in this case, on your end, the old "you can't have any viable form of <absolute> morality without God).

So here's the deal.

I have two versions for youse two--the following is the short one: "Move on. Do not repeat."

What's been happening again, now, is your old shtick (taken from my "long version")----going from micro-parsing to meta-tangents, and it never ends without intervention.

If the short version here can't be effectively and amicably understood, the longer one (not THAT long :pfft:) is ready to go. :evilg:

P.S. I'm not saying you can't post anything anymore (especially the OP). Just figure it out. Maybe just quit "talking" to each other" or make it different. Whatever. Just don't do what you usually do and were doing again. Give up with each other if you have to and just move on to other posters in the thread or another thread.

And don't "explain" it to me. I won't be reading any PMs from either of you on this either, though my affection for you both knows no bounds. Ok. That's hyperbole. It's pretty reasonably bound.

I know. I am a turrible turrible human bean.

[DeaconTheVillain]

Which organized religion (or sect) in your opinion seems to be the most outrageous or have the most asinine beliefs?

Which organized religion in your opinion seems to be least outrageous?

[IONTOP]

Which organized religion (or sect) in your opinion seems to be the most outrageous or have the most asinine beliefs?

Which organized religion in your opinion seems to be least outrageous?

The most outrageous? I'd go with the ones that kill people for either sinning/not believing/sacrificing/etc.

The least outrageous? I'd go with the ones that preach tolerance of other's views and realize that while others may not have the same beliefs as you, you have no right to tell them that they are incorrect in what they believe.

Or I'd say Scientology is the least outrageous, because they make no secret about it being about money...