http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-03-26-religion_x.htmEditor,I read with great interest the Forum article ?A War on Christians? No? (3/27/06) because I have been personally accused of helping to lead that fictitious war. As the National Spokesperson of American Atheists, I have been charged many times with trying to ?de-religionize America? or ?Make Christianity illegal.?The accusations make me angry, because its not true. None of it. Really. These exaggerations or lies are intended to foster the fear that some kind of organized attack against Christians is underway. Again, wrong.What is true is that times have changed, and America is becoming a more religiously diverse society. What was once an apparently single-religion society has evolved, and the old king-of-the-hill doesn?t like sharing. Despite the fact that this country supports millions of churches (none of them paying taxes), Christianity has panicked and launched legal efforts to keep control.Control is the key cause of the religious right ? not of their own lives, but everyone else?s. Abortion, Gay rights, and Death with Dignity are all opposed by the Christian right, yet the issues do not effect them. Forced school prayer and unmonitored Faith-Based initiatives legitimize, endorse, and fund these religions at the expense of true religious freedom.Secular people see these movements as attacks on our individual rights, and we fight against them. We want nothing beyond achieving that which is ours by law ? equality. We think that?s reasonable, and worth fighting for.The Christians’ response to our defense is usually an attack on our moral character coupled with cries of discrimination. Rarely does a Religious Right proponent speak plainly about the merits of the issues they support, instead opting for redirection and reckless exaggerations. They use words like ?war? and ?enemy? because they have lost their perspective. It?s as simple as that, and I applaud Mr. Krattenmaker for bringing this to light. The Left and the Right are not enemies, but adversaries — with a common enemy somewhere in the Middle East. Let us all hope that both sides can work together in the spirit of peace and progress. It won?t be easy, but it can start with the recognition that although we are left-wing and right-wing, we?re on the same darn bird.David P. SilvermanNational Communications DirectorAmerican Atheists, Inc.
jcc:
Excuse me, I don’t recall ever saying any such thing.
My contempt is for his (their) method, as it is unscientific.
Group think. Interesting. So you mean to imply that the larger scientific community is a pack of blind conformists who never question, never investigate, or never test their assumptions? Who’s showing contempt here?
Gaping holes. LOL! I’ll mock your gaping holes by introducing you to our latest little friends:
Afraid to employ Occam’s Razor? How about this: supernatural explanations are unverifiable, unfalsifiable, and completely unnecessary in the quest to explain our origins, therefore Occam’s Razor dictates that we ignore them. Occam’s Razor indeed.
I can assure you that my mode of thinking is anything but conventional.
The old Galileo chestnut. But wasn’t it Newton who admitted to be merely “standing upon the shoulders of giants?” It takes more than a couple of tricks of logic and list of complaints to make a valid competing theory. A curious novelty does not a truth make.
And maybe your definition of objectivity is a bit warped, as it seems to include giving your unquestioning ear to hearsay, specious reasoning, tortured apologetics, and pseudoscience.
I’ve not only inspected it, I’ve had to endure it.
Actually, RA, I have to speak to this:
I didn’t buy it either. Why waste my hard earned money? I just read a couple of chapters in the Fred Meyer book department every time we’d hit the grocery store on Sundays. I was done with it in no time, as it was not exactly a difficult read.
But, my friend, I have to ask: Do they not have a library in Hayward? If not, I suggest moving. I’d die without a good library.
Rainbows
Then explain the origin of morals, didn’t you have a surprise for me?
Another thing though. Were it able to prove that evolution was the truth atheists would be using that proof all the time.
My observation is that they are not. This must mean that they have no proof.
My conclusion is then that atheists take evolution on faith.
r4d:
Yes, they do. It’s not a very good 1, however. I drop by on occasion.
Also, I’ve been putting off my own writing too long.
Goose:
You haven’t been listening, then.
Then try active listening.
LMAO! What about the mountains of forensic evidence…
Oh, never mind.
Here, let’s take a page out of YOUR book.
What would it take for you to ‘believe’ evolution, or (in reality) take it as fact?
Reluctant
I have been listening. That is why is am saying it.
I would to ask one question though:
Is is a property of evolution that traits positive to the species are retained and the negative ones are shed? Thus the positive traits are carried forward to the next generation and in time a new species appears.
Didi i get it?
RA your speeking to the wall my friend jcc and goose will not accept evoulotuon as fact not as long as they are under the influence of a population control scheme like religion they do not have to think for themselves they just have to rehash the same old drugery they have been feed there whole lives the mountains of evidence for evoultion has disproved genesis so if genesis is wrong maybe the entire work of fiction they have based there lives on may be wrong to if it is so then what form of thought control would be cast over them none of course and i think that is what they are afraid of they might actually have to use critical reasoning and think for themselves of course gallath knows this for shure
Goose:
Just so we’re clear, what constitutes positive & negative traits? I would assume that anything that would keep the species alive is positive?
Have you visited talkorigins.org?
Those fellows are peer-reviewed & accredited. I’m just a joe-schmoe layman w/o a degree. Go read the experts.
Off-track here:
I noted somewhere there was a discussion about cannabilism. You realize cannabilism is fairly common, especially in Africa? Among animals & humans.
Like the commercial says, “The more you know…”
udonman:
Hey, I LIKE talking to myself. Hehehehe.
Yeah, you’re right. But it helps me flesh it out some.
I especially am tickled when Goose lays it out like it’s a dogma or a doctrine. Quite amusing, really.
Soft chains are hardest to break.
Okay Goose, I promised a response. Let’s see how much I have left in me tonight.
I was talking about reciprocal altruism – ‘I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine.’ It is a component of natural meta-ethics, just like natural empathy is, but neither represent the entire picture. There are also the social/cultural aspects.
Try this for a thought experiment: If you were the only human left alive, would it be possible to act ‘immoral’? I mean really, there would be no one to wrong and there would be no society to judge. Perhaps the biggest component of what we eventually refer to as ‘morality’ (I prefer the term ethics) is social consequences. If one decides to take a life, he has not only taken the life of a being that probably shares similar hopes, dreams, and experiences that he does, but he may have just robbed a parent of his child, or child of her parent, a wife of her husband, a student of his mentor. This is something that the larger group can not tolerate, and for most people it is unbearable to be damned from their group. More natural motivation against murder. But some people are sociopaths who cannot empathize and who might even relish in being ostracized by society. That’s when moral complexity kicks in. (do we kill him to save the larger group?)
Wow, okay, interesting question. I guess my answer would be to first state that there are degrees and types of social behavior within the animal kingdom just as there are degrees of intelligence. In fact, many scientists now believe that the two go hand and hand. There’s actually a really good article in the latest Scientific American about how one particular group of Orangutans in the Suaq swamp of Sumatra have developed a sophisticated range of fashioned tools for extracting food. No other group of wild Orangutans have been observed exhibiting the same behavior, even groups living just twenty miles down river. Why are these Orangutans so different? Well, the major difference is that this particular group is more social. They share more, they cooperate more, and as a result they have a more sophisticated culture which results in more sophisticated technology which results in more sophisticated culture which results in more sophisticated technology and so on.
If by arbitrary you mean ‘random chance,’ well I for one have always failed to see why this would make any difference in value. If someone strikes gold by chance, is the gold worthless?
Well, the issue here I think is that while I’m still talking about basic meta-ethics, you’ve already moved on to cultural morality. Cultural moralities are cultural innovations. This is were religion and philosophy come from, and yes, they are largely dependent on the culture they come from.
There is a tribe in New Guinea called the Sambia who are the perfect example of moral ambiguity. The Sambia have created a society that is almost completely segregated across gender lines. For the Sambia man, women are considered a dangerous poison that will take his Jerungdu – his life force – his semen. At age seven, the boys are taken from their mothers and brought into the secret society of men warriors. THe older males choose a boy to raise in the warrior tradition, and the essential part of this companionship is most disturbing to the western mind. It is believed that in order for these boys to become men they must receive daily oral doses of Jerungdu, and I’ll leave it up to you to figure out just what that means.
To you and I, this is disgusting, disturbing, and immoral, but to the Sambia it is life. You would argue that it is because they are separated from god, I would simply say that cultures change and ‘improve’ with new cultural innovations. After all, Western Civilization started in Greece, and the ancient Greeks were into pretty much the same thing. I might even go so far as to admit that Christianity was one of the major innovations that led us here today (okay, it’s pretty much undeniable,) but then again so is modern secularism.
It’s not a chicken or the egg question, it’s evolution. More like one grain of sand on top of the other (and every now and then something comes along and kicks the pile.)
One of the more interesting things about physics is that there really is no such thing as nothing.
And these words I’m typing are just electrons bouncing around on silicon, so lets just kill ourselves (just kidding.)
Were you ever a hippy? Anyway, illusions are defined as not part of reality. So doesn’t that make calling reality an ‘illusion’ a bit oxymoronic?
When have I once asserted that we are not self aware? In fact, haven’t I been championing human consciousness during this entire conversation? Are you trying to put words into my mouth? Redefine materialism to suit your needs and bolster your argument. That is called building a straw man. Have fun with the crows because I’m tired of playing there.
Again, value is a matter of perspective. We are each value givers.
Literature is only dangerous to an uncritical thinker.
I don’t see how. One thinks about performing a certain action, he then weighs the possible consequences of that action, and he then acts accordingly. If it turns out bad, well then he hopefully learns a lesson for next time (unless the consequences are so bad that there isn’t a next time.) Nope, I fail to see how that is circular in any way. Appears quite linear in fact.
How quaint.
We do. Kinda sucks sometimes though, as we often turn out to be wrong.
Maybe. A question for a more enlightened sage perhaps, but expecting perfect answers to such questions is futile IMO.
At this moment my wife is playing one of her many brilliant songs on the piano. If my whole purpose in life were just to sit and listen, that would be just fine with me.
I think I’ve made it pretty clear that both answers are valid, so long as it is admitted that man is a part of nature.
The onus of proving supernatural claims lies solely upon the believer.
Naturally evolving systems are environment-dependent. Take a polar and put him the desert for a week – the results aren’t pretty. Some social constructs, some ‘morals’ if you will, inspire us to do a great deal of harm, often without even realizing it. We need a moral innovation beyond the divisive, destructive forces of religion and nationalism or we will perish.
I agree insofar as our common humanity being universal (or at least global,) but cultural/moral innovations are competing all the time.
I agree.
Well in a way we do, but we are all still human.
Okay, that was one really long post. Please excuse the inevitable typos and grammatical errors. I am too exhausted to edit.
r4d:
Best post ever. Well done, sir, well done. I applaud you.
r4d I second reluctants comment and add a golf clap
Testing:
okay, guess it doesn’t work unless you’re in edit mode. Tough luck.
heathenz its the only way any body can do it same as hyperlinking web address in comment posts and using the spellcheck feature
Goose,
That’s okay and I understand. I need a break as well.
jcc
To save you from a trip to w3schools.com, it’s my understanding that you cannot do this without privs to edit posts.
Could be wrong – but that’s the only way I can do it.
When have I denied the big bang? What does this have to do with biological evolution? Why are you changing the subject?
Utter lack of any plausible theory for abiogenesis? Well, my research has pointed me to several theories, all plausible. The reason that there are several comes from the fact that we have so far been able to find direct evidence to show us exactly what conditions were like… oh geeze why am I even bothering with you?
And that is quite possibly the stupidest thing you have ever said, in my opinion. Science is all about questioning.
Beware of pegging your hopes on the undiscovered country – the world may turn out to be round after all. As for the img tag, go to w3schools.com and learn some basic html.
No, a god causing the big bang is unverifiable.
There is plenty of positive research in this area if you would only bother to look.
Way to mischaracterize my positions by reducing me to a simplistic cartoon. I won’t let it get under my skin though. For one, I am paid for my original thinking. For two, anybody who knows me can attest to the fact that no matter what crowd I find myself in I’m always finding something to have a spirited debate over. This is true at home, at work, on this blog, at the humanist meeting hall, or wherever. And as far as my occasional profanity is concerned: just because you happen to be a self righteous prude doesn’t make my points any less valid.
Oh yeah, you were once on ‘our side,’ and your skepticism eventually led you to rock-solid faith. Okay whatever. Have it your way.
So I should turn the other cheek? Screw that.
jcc
I’ve been loving the sarcasm from you. Truly. It’s made you so much more…human.
r4d
Outstanding post!
Goose
I agree with heatheNZ regarding your response to r4d.
It seems you either can’t or won’t understand, or are simply not listening.
You ask “What about A and B and C?”
And answers are given: “A is…, B could be…, My view of C is…” and you respond with “But what about A, B and C?” Or else you take what has been said in response to you, turn it inside out and say you have made your own point!
I know I do the same thing with jcc at times. Usually it is after lapsed periods of times on the same question, however, not in back-to-back posts.
Goose,
R4D went to some length to describe the Sambia tribe and their daily oral doses of Jerungdu. That they regard this behavour as ‘moral’ and we regard it as ‘immoral’ clearly makes a mockery of your statement
Anything you build on that assumption is of no epistomological value.
I actually get the feeling that you take the position that your view of morality is the only valid view, and therefore any one else’s view is by definition wrong, and their acts, though ‘moral’ in their eyes, are ‘immoral’ by your absolute standards.
In a weird way, this makes some convoluted sense, but only if you take as a presupposition that your own set of morals are the ‘only correct’ set.
This would of course be an arrogant and egotistical position.
Rainbows
I don’t think that we are not getting anywhere, at least so far we haven’t.
Writing these long posts takes much time for me and i don’t have that luxury at the moment.
I don’t think i will respond (not soon anyway) if you decide to respond to my last post.
Unless you really want me to:)
But i will read whatever you write, if you decide to write.
Rainbows
Thannk you for your extensive post.
Ok so you weren’t talking about altruism in the sense of unselfish sacrifice for the benefit of another human. I thought thats what is menat by morals. Whats moral about give and take? The shopkeeper isn’t altruistic when he gives me food and i give him money.
Well its kind of hard to have empathy towards someone who doesn’t exist. I don’t think thats a very good thought experiment.
Well let’s say a homeless bum with no relatives and no firends, no nothing. In theory i could just kill him then. I wouldn’t be damned from anywhere for killing him.
Listen to what you are saying, really. The reason we don’t kill each other is because of fear of retribution from the group…
Interesting. But my question was if we were social before developing social traits (social traits was used for moral behaviour here).
These Orangutans show social behaviour. Herd behaviour probably? Can they choose to act un orangutan-like? Have they developed a moral law to control their behaviour? Can they act “immorally”? I don’t think the above example brought us any further down this path.
By arbitrary i mean that whatever somebody sees as beneficial for the survival of the species can be considered ok.
Interesting that you say “strike gold”… see that is how i see it. We discover morality. We don’t make it up. We can’t no matter how we try. Beacuse it is not man-authorized and not arbitrary.
No i am still talking about morality which is the same no matter if you look at it from a cultural context or not.
Religion, i take it you mean christianity, comes from the person of Jesus.
Yuck.
Here you are referring to a absolute moral law since you condider it immoral. If morals are relative then this cannot be seen as disgusting, it just is.
And i would say that in all civilizations, morals have looked basically the same. Sure there have been smaller discrepancies, but the major aspects have been similar. I do not see how it has changed or improved, ever.
Doesn’t matter, if it exists but is not observable it cannot affect morality.
In search of a better word i used “illusion”. Experience then. Point is energy&matter (nature) doesn’t have free will.
You have said that we are self-aware. But i don’t see how you can support materialism and self-awareness at the same time.
I said you were begging the question in saying social consequences is everything needed for morals.
Ok, i guess the right thing to do is competely man-authorized after all. What an excerceis to write all this text just to arrive where we were at the start.
If everything isn’t ok just because it is truly beneficial, who decides if it is ok or not?
Is that the purpose then?
Where does the value come from?
And both answers would theoretically mean that anything could go under certain circumstances.
Whether a thing or not is supernatural is a subjective opinion. It might be completely natural to me.
However i think that in proper debating absolute claims need proof. If you cannot prove it you must acknowledge that there is a chance it can come from God.
Morals? Harm? What do you mean?
Gah, isn’t it so that we are seeing one set of morals?!?!?
Anyway, this was a long excercise. I do not think you said anything more than you’ve said in previous posts.
Fact still remains. There seems to be an absolute moral law which we consiously or subconsiously refer to all the time.
Were it man-authorized it would be abused ever so often, Though we can observe that it won’t budge.
Were it because of evolution then that basis would be survival. Which would lead to ugly things.
If it is neither man-authorized nor avolved whatis it?
For me it is a strong argument for God. Still.
rainbows4dinosaurs:
Ah yes, multiple, repeatable evidences for the occurrence of the big bang is??unscientific;? the utter lack of any plausible, workable or practical theory to explain the formation of the first cell, let alone the DNA molecule is? you?re right!?unscientific.
Yep, you said it quite succinctly, they ?never question.?
Yes, see the second half of my comments about DNA and the first cell above.
By the way, how?d you tag the image file?
.Oh, you mean the big bang, is ?unverifiable?? Again, what about explaining exactly how the first DNA molecule formed??or exactly how the first fully formed cell formed? Where?s the ?scientific? verification for those?
In my opinion, and from my perspective, your mode of thinking is right straight down the party line with absolutely no deviations from the ?norm??most unoriginal, and typically profane.
What an amazing thing to assert. Clearly, you haven?t fully comprehended all I?ve written about myself.
Tsk, tsk. We all have our ?cross to bear??especially when you continue to choose to react to my posts.
HeatheNZ
Please point out to me the places you speak of.
I’d be happy to respond again, if anything i said seemed inconsistent with what i’ve said earlier.
Goose
I find these comments astounding, coming at the end of a long post that clearly does not support them.
It seems that preconceived ideas are destined to rule over any argument and/or evidence.
Such is life in this mystical world….
Kids Sing Praise Collection – Over
recordings have SOLD over 6 Children can sing sing, and with Kids Praise Kids Praise! Sunday School Songs 2, on…