(Spoken with Hogan’s Heroes-style German Accent)NOW IS ZE TIME IN AMERIKA VEN VE PRAY!Please post here if you are having / know of a counter protest!
AMERICAN ATHEISTS, INC.http://www.atheists.orghttp://www.americanatheist.orgFor more information, please contact:Ellen Johnson, President (908) 276-7300Dave Silverman, Communications Director (732) 648-9333FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 1, 2006MAY 4 NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER IS “SCOUNDREL TIME” FOR PREACHERS, NERVOUS POLITICIANS CHARGES ATHEIST WATCHDOG GROUPThursday’s National Day of Prayer celebration has taken on a heightened role to distract public attention from real political and social problems facing the American people, an Atheist civil rights group charged today.”It’s Scoundrel Time,” said Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists.”Americans are facing record gas prices, the prospect of continued loss of lives in Iraq, pedophile scandals linked to the clergy, and government-orchestrated public prayer is the last thing we need on the agenda,” said Johnson.”If I were a politician running for re-election or a religious leader, I’d want an event like the National Day of Prayer to distract people from the real difficulties and tough solutions we face,” Johnson added. “Prayer won’t solve the energy crisis, it won’t create or do anything else to make our lives better and more fulfilling.”National Day of Prayer is a nationwide annual event sanctioned by federal statute and promoted by religious extremist groups like Focus on the Family, headed by “family values” guru James Dobson. President Bush, state governors, and local politicians often show up at staged rallies and prayer events. “It’s Big Brother telling Americans when and how to pray,” said Johnson.Dave Silverman, Communications Director for American Atheists said that political leaders who participate in NDOP activities “send the message that government is linked to religious faith, particularly the extreme Christian fundamentalist brand being promoted by Dobson and other religious right leaders such as Pat Robertson.”"These people took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, not someone’s version of sectarian religion,” said Mr. Silverman. AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights for Atheists; works for the total separation of church and state; and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.
reluctant I love my car its my freedom wish I had a transit system like the bart but we dont around here
by the way I posted a rebuttal to your post post on my blog
Self defense is one thing, but feelings of nationalism are purely subjective and practically indefensible from a humanist perspective, IMO. There really shouldn’t be any borders to isolate us and foster suspicion, and that is my point.
I think that speaks to a level of intelligence, not consciousness. The mirror test is no longer considered a reliable test for consciousness, but most higher primates do recognize themselves in the mirror. Some say dolphins can too.
http://tinyurl.com/j2oqj
http://tinyurl.com/309o
Well, my conception of what morality is differs somewhat from yours. You see it as a set of rules that we have been made conscious of by the creator and it is up to us whether or not to listen to him. I however see what we tend to call morality as a set of behavioral and cultural adaptations. So by my definition, the answer to your question is yes, at least in a sense.
Well, the obvious answer would be because I want to survive, but of course there’s more to it than that. Ethics contribute to the quality of one’s life, which in turn enhances prosperity. Prosperity itself might be seen as the ultimate state of survival.
Another obvious answer might be because I want to maintain the species, but again, that’s too broad an explanation to apply at the personal level. Again, I believe it has to do with the quality of life. Good actions result in good responses which foster a good environment which fosters joyful prosperity.
Or, to put it bluntly: If you act like an asshole, people are going to treat you like one, so it makes perfect sense not to be an asshole.
What is the big problem with that? It has to be made out of something, doesn’t it?
But I look at it differently than you do. I don’t feel the need to use emotionally stilted language like ‘mindless’ and ‘purposeless’ – I find the immense wonder of it all quite edifying. I don’t understand your nihilistic lamentations.
Oh brother, how simplistic. Please spare me the pop-quantum mysticism – I really have little patience for it.
Anyway, contingency and necessity go hand and hand. That’s really what chaos theory is all about: If we can understand the nature of a seemingly random catalyst, then the outcome is entirely deterministic. It’s still all cause and effect, endlessly.
Because you have a life to live, that’s why. We are the lucky ones, able to experience consciousness and life, able to contribute to the fabric of humanity, able to contemplate the world, able to feel emotions and and gain new experiences and make babies and debate morality on this blog and witness the fruit of our labors and able to choose for ourselves what our own life means to us.
Your life is like a work of art – make it beautiful.
There may be some moral absolutes. Perhaps I should say that our understanding of morality evolves.
So am I, and part of what I have observed is that much of the morality of the Bible is outdated.
Gosse, apes and dolphins DO recognise their image in mirrors.
About animal awareness, what about dolphins having names?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9128-dolphins-play-the-name-game-too.html
Surely you can’t say that a social animal, that calls other in the group BY THEIR INDIVIDUAL NAME isn’t concious?
r4d:
Not exactly. I?ve seen people ostensibly give it their best shot and come away with conclusions that mirror yours. So, what happened? I don?t know. I?m not prescient enough to make the kinds of judgments you cite (though I?ve heard them, too).
Every worldview has its problems, its unanswered questions. I?m not sure what you mean by ?dangerous?, but I?ll grant that it can hurt people to declare a faith and find that it somehow doesn?t work for them. What then? Anger and dismissal? Despair? Suicide? I don?t know. I?ve tried to be as honest and critical about my own experience as I know how, but I haven?t discovered anything that persuades me to deny that experience. Anyway, I didn?t mean to preach at you. That?s not why I?m here.
DD:
I think you?d be more successful if you actually learned something about my beliefs before attacking them. That way, you?d be attacking something real instead of a straw man.
First, you?re confusing your terms. Rights are political constructs, not ethical ones, so God doesn?t ?assign? them. But you originally said ?take some responsibility? and went on to suggest that Christians (or ?religious? people) abdicate responsibility by deferring their purpose(s) in life to God. If I misunderstand you, please clarify. If not, here?s how it works (for Christians, at least):
On a societal level, behavior is rewarded or punished based on conformance to certain norms or laws. The rules that govern behavior take several forms, including positive law, social mores, folkways, and a basic, innate sense of right and wrong. Just like you, Christians are subject to the pressures and obligations imposed by these rules. Unlike you, though, (and this is where the ?2000 year old work of child?s fiction? is applicable) Christians accept additional responsibility pursuant to a higher standard. You?ve probably heard some colloquial references to how some of this works: ?go the second mile?, ?if somebody asks you for your shirt, give him your coat as well?, ?don?t just love your friends, love your enemies, too?, ?turn the other cheek?, ?do your giving in secret?, ?hate is the same as murder?, etc. In the end, I don?t defer my responsibilities to ?an invisible deity who has never been proven to exist?, I merely adopt an additional set of them.
On another level, I define many of my own purposes, just like you. Education, career, marriage, children, friends, values, are all interwoven to several purposes. Moreover, ?purpose? is a loaded term. Viktor Frankl (in Man?s Search for Meaning) wrote that (and I?m paraphrasing here) despite having been so traumatized that they no longer expect anything out of life, prisoners at Auschwitz could be encouraged not to give up hope by recognizing that life has expectations of them. His point, among many others, was that meaning and purpose aren?t necessarily chosen so much as they?re recognized.
As noted, they?re not all written there. And parts of the old book are much older than 2000 years, which undoubtedly serves to discredit it even further.
I couldn?t find that quote and I don?t recall writing those words, so I think you?re making an inference.
Don?t mistake a strong response for anger. Reckless mischaracterizations deserve strong responses.
BTW, you didn?t respond to my suggestion, below. Have you tried it yet?
Rainbows
Reluctant:
I just made a note of that quote. I hope r4d doesn’t mind if spread it around a bit.
Hey, that’s a great quote! I’m impressed.
Anyways, this thread is old, and I tire of going up half a page to find particular posts, so I give up. Hopefully there’s another good one soon!
r4d:
My, my, my. You just get better all the time, don’t you?
That’s grand. Simple – but effective.
You should let the poet come out a little more often.
R4D
messed up the blockquotes
Man….
…all I can say is that is incredibly refreshing.
I mean that that sort of ad hoc logic has enabled every cult and religious sect since the dawn of man to claim moral and metaphysical supremacy over all others, and unfortunately most people aren’t trained to sniff out the fallacy.
Wait a sec, do you really think losing one’s faith will automatically have such negative results? I really can’t think of a specific empathy moment where I lost my faith – it was a gradual process, one illusion at a time. I guess it was pretty hard when I was still going to church, but that had more to do with the environment than it did with my own internal ’struggle.’ Atheism is generally more of a realization than a conversion – it’s more like “hey, wow, I guess I’m an atheist now,” and then it’s a matter of figuring out what to do with that realization.
Fair enough.
So far, I haven’t taken anything you’ve said as being preachy.
BTW, did I catch somewhere that you went to Liberty University? I used to live near there.
Absolutely not. But it?s plausible, especially if someone has invested everything they are in an ideology and the rug is suddenly pulled out from under them.
Yeah, lived on ?Treasure Island?, which was basically a big sandbar in the middle of the James River that had some cabins designed to accommodate a summer camp. Jerry used them for dorms. It was one long, painful semester. Now THERE?S an experience to make you question your faith.
Goose
Perhaps, except that my definition of what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is entirely dependent on the observed outcome of such behavior – that’s where the objectivity comes in for me, in the observation of results.
No, what I’m talking about is moral naturalism.
Not sure what you’re asking, so I’m not sure how to answer.
To a certain extent, sure, especially from the perspective of other dogs. Same goes for humans, that is why some murderers are judged unfit to stand trial.
Anyway, I don’t understand why you are so fixated on denying animals any sort of conscious choice. It seems like on the one hand you’re more than willing to describe the behavior of animals as little more than response to stimuli; a bunch of chemical processes with ‘no inherent purpose.’ But when the same mechanisms are applied to humanity you get all freaked out. Have you ever considered the possibility that conscious choice is a response to stimuli? Or that the ‘purpose’ is to respond, and the value of that purpose is determined by the repercussions of that response?
Because ignoring it would not maximize the quality of my life and prosperity. Even if being a self-centered jerk resulted in me acquiring more material wealth and power, the quality of my life would still degrade, for such an approach to life tends to result in vacuous, superficial relationships, meaningless pursuits (in that they have no reciprocal social value) and a preoccupation with acquiring ever more mounds of unnecessary junk.
Why do you insist on getting my blood boiling with such loaded questions? How about this old chestnut: If the next life is so much better than this life, why do you insist on sustaining such a sub-standard life? Don’t answer that – I know that your own purpose in life constitutes a hell of a lot more than just loving god, even if you choose to frame everything in that context. If you really want to know how I find purpose in life, try this little exorcise: The next time your baby boy makes a cute gurgling sound, say to yourself “this is my purpose in life.” The next time you feel warm sunshine on your face, say to yourself “this is my purpose in life.” The next time you read a particularly good book, say to yourself “this is my purpose in life.” The next time you recognize that something you have done has benefitted others, say to yourself “this is my purpose in life.”
Well, there’s also your own internal self image that you have to live with. You don’t want to create another experience that will later cause you to ‘cringe,’ right? It’s all part of the golden rule.
Well shoot, even Jesus knew the answer to that one. The urge comes first, and the will to act or to resist comes second. Now go pluck your eyeballs out.
Coherent and rational? Are you sure that’s what you’re looking for? Are you sure it’s not just simplicity that you seek? If your conception of human purpose rests entirely on the premiss that purpose, by definition, requires a purpose giver (and that the universe is governed by strict definitions in a human dictionary); if you can’t imagine the purpose of an entity being defined by the entity itself (unless that entity is God of course,) then there is no explanation I can give that will satisfy you.
Yes. The apparent non-locality of quantum particles has no observable bearing on contingency factors at the macro level. Any connection between the two is wild speculation, and that’s putting it mildly.
This observation is limited by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.
Unpredictable? Yes, based on the limits imposed by Heisenberg’s Principle. Random? No one really knows. Check this out, you’ll love it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics
Now can we drop the quantum mysticism for a while? Nobody should be allowed to pretend to understand the weirdness of quantum mechanics, since even quantum physicists themselves often admit to not fully understanding it.
It’s a problem of perception and perspective. I don’t need to believe in a supernatural value-giver to believe that my existence has value. My family values me, my friends value me, and I value me. That is enough to objectively say “I’m worth something.”
And Jesus dying on a cross isn’t enough for me to explain anything at all.
Rosemary:
Hey, I’m sure he’ll want you to make a donation via his PayPen account.
I joke, of course.
RA, Rosemary, Deadly,
Thanks! Not going to take full credit though.
I think I at least got that general idea from humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz. There’s a little book he put out called “Affirmations: Joyful and Creative Exuberance” that might’ve touched on the idea.
Goose:
Man-o-man. Sword_strike is correct.
I’ve been meaning to do this for a while now:
http://biblioblography.blogspot.com/2006/05/intrinsic-value-in-another-species.htm
Or:
‘Does Flipper have a soul?’
Hehehehe.
r4d:
Ah-ah-ah! No switching gears! You know that drives the theists up a tree.
wdo,
Yeah, I know that place. I briefly worked at a Long John Silvers in Lynchburg while living in a trailer on my grandmother’s property in Moneta. That was about 15 years ago – wasn’t exactly the happiest time in my life. But I used to drive past Liberty all the time. Always wondered what went on in there.
Rainbows
I cut down the text to just keep the relevant. I just want to say:
Sorry, that was thoughtless of me
Well i am. If they were able to make moral choices we’d hold them morally accountable.
So all brain activity would also just be cause&effect? No independent thinking, every thought is a consequence of the previous one?
What you explain above is why you personally exhibit moral behaviour. Someone elses personal preferences might be totally different and result in a moral system where for example the ends justify the means, even in personal relations.
Which would lead to relative morals.
But (i might be wrong here) you seem to constantly refer to an objective “right thing to do” in a social context.
Ok. I will do that.
But you agree that the purpose then is subjective?
No. You seem to be a friend of the scientifical law of causality.
All effects must have a cause. Morality cannot be observed in nature.
It is an intangible concept that arise only in man. I want to know what the natural cause is.
But they seem random for the moment right? Perhaps in the future we will be able to tell.
So, for the moment we have something that moves without any observable cause?
Objectively, does the bible give a reasonable explanation for the state of the world and why we think it has gone wrong?
“Objectively, does the bible give a reasonable explanation for the state of the world and why we think it has gone wrong? “
The “state of the world” “has gone wrong”?
Gone wrong, you mean it used to be right? When?
Goose:
Didja read my post on dolphins?
Your speciocentrism knows no bounds, does it?
sword_strike:
Every time I hear something like that, I’m ALWAY reminded of that Flanders quote:
“I yearn for the good old days, that only exists in my head.” Or somesuch.
That was strange:
I tried to post that last comment, got a strange message from atheists.org, ‘page unavailable, please go here’.
Bizarre.
reluctant I just got the same thing on another thread and lost my comment I think they are wathcing our little blog here.
GooseHenry,
I thought you made a nice, insightful comment:
Hope you don?t mind if I jump in and comment on this.
The relative morals discussed here all seem to be about how to treat others. And yes, there does seem to be much variation between people, cultures and times. But what if I define morals to be how people say they want to be treated? There seems to be much less variation here. Does this mean that this is a possible approach to defining absolute morals?
If so, then judge-able morals would be how much one?s treatment of others deviates from how they themselves want to be treated (the golden rule). Deviations from this might be necessary due to practical considerations (how much money and effort are you going to expend on a criminal when innocent people are starving?), but I would think the ideal would still be solid., no?
Reluctant, that Flanders quote was exactly what I was trying to remember!
People tend to idealise the past too much. Each period has it’s positive AND negative sides, there never was a perfect period for humanity.
About goose’s speciocentrism:
Apes can learn sign language. Dolphins and other cetaceans have what field experts call a culture, unique to each group. Dolphins call each other by their individual name.
Both apes and dolphins understand what a mirror is.
But faith being what it is, I don’t think he will ever let the facts get in the way of what he “knows”.
Well, in some ways we do, especially if we’re still talking about domestic dogs. But that accountability is based on human standards. Social animals are observed holding each other accountable, based on their own standards.
The jury may not be totally in on the subject of human consciousness, but I’m with the camp asserting that independent thinking is an example of cause and effect, though in all likelihood an immensely complicated example.
Even though there may be a certain amount of cultural and historical relativity to ethical standards, there are also certain aspects of our shared humanity that never change. These shared human attributes -the desire to be free of suffering, the desire to find one’s place and purpose in the social fabric through works and relationships, the desire for personal liberty, the desire to love and to work and contemplate the universe in peace – are universal desires throughout the species. Yes, humanity is also plagued by universally detrimental passions – war, jealousy, greed, and dogmatic thinking. But like Tom said, we can judge this darker side of our nature by an empathy based rule of thumb – “if that were me, would I want to be treated in such a way?” This shared humanity, universal throughout time and throughout the world, is an objective observation. We cannot wish it away and we cannot alter it – it is simply what we are and it is the truth. These universal aspects of our behavior and the repeatable consequences of our behavior, both good and bad, beneficial and detrimental, constitute reality-based moral absolutes that we can always look towards as examples of how best to conduct our lives.
I’ve been thinking about this all day. Many atheists would no doubt answer yes to this question, but my answer is still no. Yes, the purpose comes from humanity itself, but again I’ll point to the shared needs and desires of humans. We can study and test and quantify these universal attributes of humanity. These qualities are always recognized as human, no matter what cultural traditions and perspectives may be present. They are objective in every way conceivable. Though we may each individually choose to focus our lives towards our own subjective purposes, there are still universal purposes that we all share.
Yep, we play bridge every friday night.
Sometimes I wonder if you are even considering a word I say, or if you’ve ever bothered to read any of the links I’ve provided. How you can still make such an absolute statement in light of the evidence is completely beyond me.
How can morality be both absolute and intangible? If you want to know about natural causes, how about listening for a change? You’re not even interested in natural causes, so your asking for one is disingenuous.
It was only four or five hundred years ago the practically all movement was considered to not have an observable cause. Beware of pinning your hopes on the god of the gaps.
Objectively, the Bible is completely devoid of reasonable explanations, though it is certainly full of mystical ones.
sword have you been to reluctants blog lately
hes got a whole post on dolphins
sword_strike:
Thanks. I’ve been taking a correspondance course from the John Edwards institute: ‘Mind-Reading 101.’
Hehehehe.
r4d:
I don’t think he does either. He just keeps repeating himself, in hopes that someone will finally say, “Hey! You’re right! You’ve been right all along!”
That’s the impression I’m getting.
Rainbows
Ehh… ok?
But still only cause&effect however?
Still no explanation why i should treat other people decently. Only because i fear that they will treat me the same way if i behave like a moron?
So, by what standard do you evaluate consequences of behaviour? What makes them either good or bad?
universal purposes? Who makes them?
I can make it since you have not yet given me neither cause nor purpose for morality as it is observed today.
What you say can only explain behaviour, not universal rights and wrongs.
Can you show me morality?
No i am. If you are tired of explaining then provide a link.
Reluctant, I just read your post on Dolphins, I read this in the news a few days ago. Amazing stuff!
Two dolphins can even talk about a third one not currently in thei rpresence, becomming the second known gossip-sharing animal after us!
Goose, HELLO! How did you manage to ignore all the posts proving you wrong on animals?
Sword_strike
Really, do you think animals can act imorally?
Have you ever watched an animal behaving selfishly and thought “wow, that was immoral.”
If so you are referring to some moral standard that animals should act accordingly yo.
What standard should dogs act accordingly to in order to be seen as immoral?
Reading the debate with Goose Henry is like watching a gerbil go round and round on its wheel. It gets nowhere.
sword_strike:
Yes, they’re amazing creatures. Small wonder they’re incorporated into some mythologies.
& they don’t kill each other over differing ideologies. Imagine that. Not to mention a much higher standard of morality that we ourselves possess. Though they do do gang-r_ape, & commit suicide.
But still: communicate w/other species?
I think they’re way ahead of us behaviorally, in most aspects.