A problem I have with Atheism [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

sexdrugsmoney

08-05-2005, 12:52 AM

Hi guys, this is my first post in Science, Math, and Philosophy and it seems like a very good forum.

The title of this thread is a little misleading, since there are various degrees of beliefs among atheists, from weak to strong, about a deity(ies) and an afterlife.

There are alot of arguments from rationalists against religion, specifically regarding the burden of proof and a concept like faith.

One of the things I have heard many athiests say is that when you are dead you are dead, there is no afterlife, you cease to be etc.

I have always found this illogical, if anyone can enlighten me I'd be very attentive, but here's an example:

5 people: (feel free to add details yourself, they are not added here because devising a judgement for humanity's actions is far beyond us and would likely be larger than all the Tax Legislations of the world combined)

1 person who is nice to everyone.
1 person who is nice to no-one.
1 person who is nice to some people.
1 person who is neither nice or mean.
1 person who is a child rapist and cannibal.

If there is no afterlife, then all these people meet the same end, and to me that is illogical.

If your actions in life are totally insignificant then nothing is 'wrong' and nothing is 'right'.

Cheers,
SDM

BZ_Zorro

08-05-2005, 01:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
1 person who is nice to no-one.
1 person who is nice to some people.
1 person who is neither nice or mean.
1 person who is a child rapist and cannibal.

If there is no afterlife, then all these people meet the same end, and to me that is illogical.

[/ QUOTE ]
How is this illogical? Seems like you have a deeply ingrained belief that there should be eternal justice.

[ QUOTE ]
If your actions in life are totally insignificant then nothing is 'wrong' and nothing is 'right'

[/ QUOTE ]
Your actions are not insignificant, they have an effect on people in the here and now. If you're intelligent enough to understand this, and normal enough to care, then figuring out what's right and what's wrong isn't that hard.

Jim T

08-05-2005, 01:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"...to me that is illogical."

[/ QUOTE ]

There are 5 cars:

1. A sports car
2. An SUV
3. An economy car
4. A luxury car
5. A convertable

They are all involved in a crash which totals them beyond repair. They all end up in a scrapyard. What is illogical about that?

[ QUOTE ]
"If your actions in life are totally insignificant then nothing is 'wrong' and nothing is 'right'. "

[/ QUOTE ]

All that is really different is that you have to decide for yourself what is "right" and what is "wrong" instead of relying on what someone else believed thousands of years ago.

Get out of the kiddie pool. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

"If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. "

David Sklansky

08-05-2005, 01:17 AM

"If you're intelligent enough to understand this, and normal enough to care, then figuring out what's right and what's wrong isn't that hard."

Technically speaking, Not Ready and I disagree with you. He uses Hitler to make his point. An abberation that is not persuasive. So lets change that to Slavery.

zipo

08-05-2005, 02:33 AM

>>If there is no afterlife, then all these people meet the same end, and to me that is illogical.

If your actions in life are totally insignificant then nothing is 'wrong' and nothing is 'right'. <<

Read Dostoyevsky's 'Crime and Punishment', and his "The Brothers Karamozov" (especially the chapter on the 'Grand Inquisitor").

Then, get back to us.

PairTheBoard

08-05-2005, 02:40 AM

If no one had ever thought of the concept of god, would atheists still be atheists?

PairTheBoard

sexdrugsmoney

08-05-2005, 02:51 AM

Zorro, please let us open a discourse that is friendly and that has the ultimate goal of enlightment. I don't believe the answers to this question is a simple as you make it out to be.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1 person who is nice to no-one.
1 person who is nice to some people.
1 person who is neither nice or mean.
1 person who is a child rapist and cannibal.

If there is no afterlife, then all these people meet the same end, and to me that is illogical.

[/ QUOTE ]
How is this illogical? Seems like you have a deeply ingrained belief that there should be eternal justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because eternal justice is logical to me.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If your actions in life are totally insignificant then nothing is 'wrong' and nothing is 'right'

[/ QUOTE ]
Your actions are not insignificant, they have an effect on people in the here and now. If you're intelligent enough to understand this, and normal enough to care, then figuring out what's right and what's wrong isn't that hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

If I am going to die one day, and you are going to die one day, and everyone here is going to die one day, and no afterlife exists, then all we have is this life.

If this life is all we have, and each of our time of expiration is unknown, then is it not logical to 'make the most of what we have' and not 'waste' our lives? (whether one wastes their life or not is subjective)

So how do we 'make the most of what we have'? Is it what we have been given OR what we have the potential to achieve?

We have laws which govern the daily relations between humans, the goal being a peaceful existence for every human as we are all equal. (I presume because of the common fact that we all were given 'life' and we all will 'die)

But these laws we witness are commonly broken. As members of a society, we give up various 'powers' (ie- the potential to regulate our fellow human beings when they wrong us by our own hands) as that power is entrusted to a justice system.

If we attempt to carry out that justice we are then in jeopardy of being judged by that justice system who can take away our liberty for a portion of our lives or even our life depending on what culture we are in and the laws that apply to it.

But who are the judges and what right do they have to deprive one of the only thing they have, their life?

Society is everywhere, there is no piece of land that is "free", everything is bought/sold and owned by somebody, and a human's liberty is from day one subject to following a certain set of rules, failure to do so can result in loss of liberty and or life.

Yet before birth, none of us signed a contract stating we would subject ourselves to these rules. There were no rules given beforehand, no choice in which we could accept or reject to enter the world, the choice was made for us, now we are here and again we seemingly have no choice but to live by the governance of our fellow humans.

As humans made the decision to bring us here, a different set make the decision to allow us to remain here, and under what circumstances?

Yet, every human has seemingly unlimited potential to obtain nearly every desire they may be able to think of, the only thing that stops them is themselves. (either by giving up this power to please the laws of society or a deity)

I cannot recall who said it (it may have been Marx) but it was something to the effect of 'If I raise a child to the age of seven they are mine for life'. Do not take the quote as if it were gospel (as its highly probable it's a misquote), but it makes a point since when we entered into this world from day one we have been 'programmed' by those who have raised us, on how we should act and comminicate in this world we have entered. (specifically, our culture/language/who we are/who is close to us/what we believe in etc.)

Ofcourse, the problem with the quote given above is that if one studies to 'enlgithen themselves' they can go back and begin to question the programming of their every belief they have 'ingrained' and challenge it to see if they agree with the encoder's (usually the parent) original message, whether they take a 'negotiated stance' (accept a part of it, reject another) or 'oppositional'. (total rejection) (this relates to Stuart Hall's work in Sociology FYI)

If humans are given no programming, what are they? Are they like animals, with merely desires? Is conscience a construct given to us by our parents or religion? Who is to say what is right and wrong?

This answer is not so simple I believe.

Therefore if we break away from parental/religious/societal programming, and if conscience is a contruct and right and wrong are not clearly defined, all we have is our life here and now and our desires ... what stops us from carrying them out, and why shouldn't we?

I don't have the answer, I only have questions.

But here's a question:

If this life is all we have and we are all designated to die at some point, then what is the logic of refraining from our desires though they may hurt fellow humans who are also designated to die and many of whom we hold in a lesser esteem than our family, which we are 'programmed' to "love"?

Cheers,
SDM

PS - What is "normal" and is this term culturally specific or universally applicable?

sexdrugsmoney

08-05-2005, 03:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]

There are 5 cars:

1. A sports car
2. An SUV
3. An economy car
4. A luxury car
5. A convertable

They are all involved in a crash which totals them beyond repair. They all end up in a scrapyard. What is illogical about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Purpose of a car:

- Mode of transportation

Purpose of a human:

- ? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]

All that is really different is that you have to decide for yourself what is "right" and what is "wrong" instead of relying on what someone else believed thousands of years ago.

Get out of the kiddie pool. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

"If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. "

[/ QUOTE ]

Good answer, but different people decide differently what is right and wrong and what matters and what doesn't.

What if one person decided that it was right to do whatever they wished considering quality of life was more important than quantity and it is better to enjoy a shorter life and risk running afoul of the law than to live a 'unguaranteed' longer life in observance with the law?

Would this person be wrong, or would this person be right? Is this train or thought logical, or illogical, and why?

Cheers,
SDM

sexdrugsmoney

08-05-2005, 03:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
>>If there is no afterlife, then all these people meet the same end, and to me that is illogical.

If your actions in life are totally insignificant then nothing is 'wrong' and nothing is 'right'. <<

Read Dostoyevsky's 'Crime and Punishment', and his "The Brothers Karamozov" (especially the chapter on the 'Grand Inquisitor").

Then, get back to us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Zipo, many thanks I'm definately going to hunt down this book now and read that said chapter.

Cheers,
SDM

Prevaricator

08-05-2005, 03:20 AM

There doesn't need to be a god in order for there to be morality.

zipo

08-05-2005, 03:38 AM

SDM - I didn't mean for my post to come off in a bad way.

The cites I mentioned shaped my own thinking about these questions in a big way was all I meant to offer.

David Sklansky

08-05-2005, 05:33 AM

"There doesn't need to be a god in order for there to be morality"

Yes there does. Even people who do what they consider "moral" when they don't "feel" like it or don't "benefit" from it are are not really being inherently moral. They are deriving what might be called "second level" pleasure or satisfaction from their willpower (See PGL) or their ability to make "morality" the most important human endeavor. But it is still selfish. And these same people were often slaveowners.

Aytumious

08-05-2005, 05:55 AM

David Sklansky

08-05-2005, 06:23 AM

"I'm quite surprised you agree with NotReady that a higher authority is necessary for morality or a system of ethics to exist. Do you also agree with him that god must exist for meaning to exist in the world? If so, how do you come to that conclusion through logic?"

Not sure what you mean by meaning. But I think the answer is yes.

The three way debate between myself, Not Ready and once and future king seems to boil down to (forgive me if I did a bad job of capturing their positions):

Not Ready:

There is no morality or meaning without God

Life sucks without morality or meaning.

Therefore life sucks if there is no God.

Once and Future King:

God is not necessary and in fact maybe a hindrence to meaning and morality.

Life sucks without morality or meaning

Therefore life is at least as good if not better if there is no God.

David Sklansky:

There is no morality or meaning without God.

Life can be perfectly fine without intrinsic morality or meaning. (Just ask kids or dolphins).

Therefore trying to figure out what makes life meaningful is only worth doing if you find it fun.

Aytumious

08-05-2005, 06:57 AM

Thanks for the clarification, David. I had incorrectly inferred through some of your posts that you had the same position as NotReady on this topic, which I found surprising.

chezlaw

08-05-2005, 06:59 AM

PokerAmateur4

08-05-2005, 07:17 AM

I agree with DS far more than any of the other 2 perspectives.

It pretty much sums up what I deduce with logic but I take it to a further extent of question.

My current conclusion on ethics and the universe at large is that it is all a toss up. While there appears to be no "ultimate universal" value on anything in a profound sense(i.e. stealing is a negative value for the universe), I am not convinced that we can draw a conclusion on anything at all.

I follow your logic in your statement that:
"
Life can be perfectly fine without intrinsic morality or meaning.
"
DS, but then ask you this: What makes it perfectly fine for a human being to live without meaning? If you conclude that there is no value to something, how do you then value that practice of being?

Pardon my lack of eloquence on all of this.

I feel that a statement like
"Stealing is wrong" or any statement really...
Can be followed by a series of "Why?"s which lead to the logical conclusion that nothing can be known.

Bottom line: Nothing can be known, everything is too profound.

-PA

PS: This may lead to interesting concepts for some: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

sexdrugsmoney

08-05-2005, 08:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
SDM - I didn't mean for my post to come off in a bad way.

The cites I mentioned shaped my own thinking about these questions in a big way was all I meant to offer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't find a trace of negativity in your post zipo, and I'm up to chapter 4 of the brothers Karamozov and enjoying it.

I hope also it will make me see some things in a different light.

Cheers,
SDM

08-05-2005, 08:30 AM

I am a Christian Orthodox. I was baptized without being asked like the majority here in Greece. I only know the basic stuff about my religion. Nobody teached me that I should go to church to earn the eternal life and I only go there when I feel like.
I don’t know if God exists but I feel that there must be something out there. I accept all religions even atheism or agnosticism because in a way all believe in something (even nothing is something).
What I believe is that when we are alive, we consume an amount of energy, that when we die should transform in something, other wise where does all that energy goes?

My father said to me once “My daughter, there are three elements in a person. Logic, instinct and sentiment. If your life depends on instinct you’ll live like an animal. If your life depends on logic you’ll live like a robot and if your life depends on sentiment you’ll live like a sentimental fool. Try to balance these three and you will always be happy”
So I try to live like this and always be happy and when I’ll die I hope, if there is an afterlife to be like the one I am living now because I don’t know if spirits can have fun.

SPhilly

08-05-2005, 10:53 AM

Never thought I would reply to post here but...
DS your stance is probably the most intellectually honest. Without God meaning (to life) cannot exist without some artificially constructed meaning.
However it is a logical argument to say that belief in God is artificially constructed to provide meaning.

(BTW this is a geat forum. Although more often then not things discussed here are so far over my head I feel like a midget in a corn field).

fnord_too

08-05-2005, 02:19 PM

I only made it through about 5 or 6 replies, one or two of which were yours. You keep using the term "logical". Either you are misusing it or you have some base assumptions you are not stating.

I think what you mean to say is "just" or "fair" or "intuitively obvious". A lot of people who are atheists will observe that religion plays to humanity's desire (if not need) to believe life is fair and just. Since obviously things don't ballance out on earth, there must be more to this life thing than the mortal life we observe.

Logic starts with precepts that are assumed to be true, and derives implications. It sounds like you are either starting with a precept, life is fair and you get what you deserve in the end, or jumping to a conclusion without identifying any assumptions.

The notion that everything ballances out in the end is nice, and intuitive, but that makes it neither logical nor correct (nor incorrect for that matter). It was obvious to a lot of people for a long time that the sun and stars all revolved around the earth. It was obvious to ancient Greeks that the earth was basically spherical (do to being able to see the tops of the masts of ships on the horizon before being able to see the body of the ship, IIRC). Here are two examples of intuitively obvious things, one of which does not reflect our current understanding of the universe and one of which does.

hurlyburly

08-05-2005, 02:46 PM

Purpose of a human:
Make more humans.

[ QUOTE ]
What if one person decided that it was right to do whatever they wished considering quality of life was more important than quantity and it is better to enjoy a shorter life and risk running afoul of the law than to live a 'unguaranteed' longer life in observance with the law?

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans are social, it's wired deeply. At some point early on, before our brains got so big, we realized that "together" was better than "alone", just because it reduced our individual chances of being eaten by bears.

Cultivate this over several thousand generations, "together" starts meaning a lot more as humans master the environment. "Alone" still isn't really feasible, but there's enough people and room that they can form up and go be "Alone together".

Add a few more thousand generations, and all the "Alone togethers" spawned more, still lots of space to go around, and being eaten by bears isn't as big of a threat.

Current time: "alone" is just as easy to achieve as "together", you can't even find a bear if you look real hard, there is no more space.

So no, that person is neither wrong nor illogical. He can't harm society, regardless of what he does individually. A fairly significant percentage of society lives this way now. It's called "college". /images/graemlins/smile.gif

maurile

08-05-2005, 05:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If there is no afterlife, then all these people meet the same end, and to me that is illogical.

[/ QUOTE ]
You seem to be using "illogical" as a synonym for "a shame," or something like that. But that's not what it means.

Anyway, it might be a shame, but that has no bearing on whether it's true.

[ QUOTE ]
If your actions in life are totally insignificant then nothing is 'wrong' and nothing is 'right'.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think that follows, but it doesn't really matter since our actions aren't totally insignificant.

maurile

08-05-2005, 05:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Life can be perfectly fine without intrinsic morality or meaning. (Just ask kids or dolphins).

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't think kids have a sense of morality or meaning? When a nine-year-old is caught lying, he feels ashamed -- possibly even remorseful. When somebody takes his toy truck from him, he feels wronged. When somebody gives him ice cream, he feels grateful.

Morality is about knowing right from wrong; trusting (or rewarding) those who do right, distrusting (or retaliating against) those who do wrong; and striving to do right oneself.

No gods are necessary for any of this. Our brains come programmed for it out of the box.

(I assume by "intrinsic morality," you just mean "morality." But if you don't, what distinction are you drawing between them?)

David Sklansky

08-05-2005, 06:09 PM

"Morality is about knowing right from wrong; trusting (or rewarding) those who do right, distrusting (or retaliating against) those who do wrong; and striving to do right oneself.

No gods are necessary for any of this. Our brains come programmed for it out of the box."

Our brains evolved to not do "immoral" things that had obvious backlashes. When they did not have obvious consequences, its a different story. Else, why slavery?

bradha

08-05-2005, 06:41 PM

10 people: (feel free to add details yourself, they are not added here because devising a judgement for humanity's actions is far beyond us and would likely be larger than all the Tax Legislations of the world combined)

2 person who are nice to everyone; 1 Christian, 1 not
2 person who are nice to no-one; 1 Christian, 1 not
2 person who are nice to some people; 1 Christian, 1 not
2 person who is neither nice or mean; 1 Christian, 1 not
2 person who is a child rapist and cannibal; 1 Christian, 1 not (gets religion in prison, confesses sins, all that jazz)

If all the major Christian religions are correct, then the 5 Christians go heaven and the other 5 don't. To me this is totally incompatible with all of the places in the bible that say things like "Our God is a just god!"
Imagining a divine supernatural creator with such a warped sense of justice seems much more illogical to me then the possible alternative of no afterlife at all.
I'm sure that not all religions have this particular trait that seems so illogical to me; I have heard that Islam emphasizes orthopraxy (right actions) over orthodoxy (right beliefs) but that is not enough to convince that they are worshipping a god who actually exists.

While I find it troubling that life is not just, not fair - some people suffer terrible hardships and deserve much better, and other people commit crimes so horrible that even capital punishment hardly seems harsh enough - I don't actually see it as being illogical. My philosophy on this is that even though life is not fair, people should try to be fair (although often people will disagree on what actually is fair in many situations).

chezlaw

08-05-2005, 07:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Morality is about knowing right from wrong; trusting (or rewarding) those who do right, distrusting (or retaliating against) those who do wrong; and striving to do right oneself.

No gods are necessary for any of this. Our brains come programmed for it out of the box."

Our brains evolved to not do "immoral" things that had obvious backlashes. When they did not have obvious consequences, its a different story. Else, why slavery?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused, now you do believe morality can exist without a god (earlier you said it couldn't)? Many are happy with the idea morality is a product of evolution rather than god given but can you clarify your view on whether it can exist without god.

chez

maurile

08-05-2005, 07:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Our brains evolved to not do "immoral" things that had obvious backlashes. When they did not have obvious consequences, its a different story. Else, why slavery?

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree (with some qualifications). What drove our moral programming was consequences. That in no way implies that morality requires the existence of gods.

Slavery is an interesting case. Was slavery immoral before recently? I'm of three minds. For one thing, I'm not crazy about judging people by standards of a later age. There's such a thing as progress, and maybe people in ancient Babylonia (or wherever) just didn't know any better. If they'd started enslaving foreigners instead of murdering them, maybe they were doing pretty good. You can't blame people for not being too far ahead of their time, or everyone is evil. We probably have practices that will appall future ages.

It's also possible that slavery wasn't really immoral in ancient times. What's morally acceptable depends on the level of technology -- quarantining contagious people and waiting for them to die or get better may be a necessity if there's no cure and no vaccine to protect health workers, for instance. Social organization is a form of technology. It's hardly fair to blame medieval England for being undemocratic when Athenian democracy was hopelessly impractical for a country that size and parliamentary representation hadn't been invented yet. Maybe it isn't feasible to support a large population without either slavery or the systems of contract, banking, land ownership and trading that developed in the 1400's and 1500's. Were there any ancient civilizations that didn't have slavery? Maybe until recently societies had to have slaves, because they literally didn't know how not to.

On the other hand, maybe they knew perfectly well that slavery was cruel, unjust, and unnecessary, but preferred rationalizing to freeing their slaves, because of self-interest. The theory that people always do what they know is right is obviously incorrect, and is not part of my argument. My argument is only that the immorality of slavery, whether in yesterday's civilizations or today's, does not depend on whether any gods exist.

David Sklansky

08-05-2005, 07:41 PM

Axiomatic morality cannot exist without God.

maurile

08-05-2005, 07:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Axiomatic morality cannot exist without God.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that moral axioms can come only from God?

Why can't they come from the pronouncements of Britney Spears instead of from God? Is the moral supremecy of God's moral axioms over Britney's itself a moral axiom? If so, where did it come from? If from God, it's circular. If from somewhere else, then it's the Somewhere Else -- not God -- whose moral axioms are of ultimate supremecy.

IMO, moral axioms don't come from God or from Britney Spears. They are programmed by evolution (unless you define "axiom" in a way that precludes that possibility -- but in that case, who cares whether "axoimatic morality" exists? Morality exists, and that's enough.)

carlo

08-05-2005, 09:52 PM

Atheism, strictly speaking, is materialistic atheism. In this sense only perceiving and acting in the world in a totally materialistic sense is atheism. Very few people could ever be called atheist( self proclaimed or unproclaimed) in this strict sense.

Some consequences of this activity. Each person is totally material as are his surrondings. Logically the scientific cliche that your value is approximately $1.72(don't know the value nowdays). When you die you(all parts of you) degenerate into powder and that's it. No more. There cannot be any value to you other than that which you're body can bring.

Relating to a poster's displaying of Bertram Russell's understanding of the world on another thread, he presented this clearly but of note is the fact that this thinking brings despair to the individual(as noted by Russel) which is valid evidence that even Russell is not a pure atheist.

Despair is not measurable, weighable nor overcomable by atheism but is a feeling which in grace will bring one out of a wrongly held perception of the world.

Some will say that feelings ,emotions or even thoughts are the result of materialistic activity(thoughts are squeezed out of the brain just as gall is produced in the gall bladder) but none the less all these entitys defy measurement and the intellectual materialist must come to grips with this.

In truth, there are very few pure materialist atheists, and in fact this is a illness of the human being which calls for remedy.

regards,
carlo

West

08-05-2005, 10:10 PM

"There doesn't need to be a god in order for there to be morality"

[ QUOTE ]
Yes there does. Even people who do what they consider "moral" when they don't "feel" like it or don't "benefit" from it are are not really being inherently moral. They are deriving what might be called "second level" pleasure or satisfaction from their willpower (See PGL) or their ability to make "morality" the most important human endeavor. But it is still selfish. And these same people were often slaveowners.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say that any action can be viewed as a form of selfishness? Even if that were true, why does that mean that God is necessary for there to be morality?

And these same people were often slaveowners? Huh??

West

08-05-2005, 10:20 PM

I don't see how the way are brains evolved has much to do with "actual" morality - it may have lots to do with what we think is moral, but just because we don't act morally, doesn't mean there isn't intrinsic morality.

sexdrugsmoney

08-06-2005, 01:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I only made it through about 5 or 6 replies, one or two of which were yours. You keep using the term "logical". Either you are misusing it or you have some base assumptions you are not stating.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct my friend, I thought I implied it but let me spell it out.

= If all there is is this life, no afterlife/no eternal judgement, and all in life are dying ... it is just a matter of when ... then ...

Is it not illogical to deprive yourself of anything you wish to do (or even if you don't desire it, have the "potential to do it"), regardless of "laws" you may break or people you may harm because you are heading to the same place anyway, and life has no 'purpose' really other than the act of 'living'?

NotReady

08-06-2005, 02:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]

therefore trying to figure out what makes life meaningful is only worth doing if you find it fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or if life actually does have meaning even if trying to figure it out is no fun at all.

08-06-2005, 02:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Is it not illogical to deprive yourself of anything you wish to do (or even if you don't desire it, have the "potential to do it"), regardless of "laws" you may break or people you may harm because you are heading to the same place anyway, and life has no 'purpose' really other than the act of 'living'?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not at all. If you break laws you go to jail. Jail is probably worse than whatever you gained by breaking the law. And it's more than just the time involved- expenses, ostracism from family and community, difficulty in getting a job after you get out...etc.

Moreover, if the punishment for your crime isn't worse than what you gain by committing it, then you'll knowingly commit it. People speed and jaywalk every day because they think it's worth it. The cost of getting caught isn't high enough to dissuade people from breaking the law. The bottom line is that everyone makes the same mental calculations to decide on a course of action. If the utility you gain is greater than the expenses you'll incur (+opportunity cost), then you'll take that action.

Notice that it doesn't matter if you're an atheist or you believe in God. An atheist might think it would be a lot of fun to steal his neighbor's Porsche, but he's probably not going to do it. The potential costs would outweigh the short term benefits.

Finally consider Heinz's dilemma.

A man's wife is extremely sick. She will die without treatment. The local pharmacist has a drug that will cure her at a cost of 2000 dollars. After compiling all of his savings and asking everyone he knows for help, the man is only able to procure 1000 dollars. He asks the pharmacist to sell the drug at a discount or allow him to pay back the difference later. The pharmacist says no. Should the man steal the drugs or allow his wife to die?

It's simple. If the man deems the benefits of stealing the drug (his wife's survival) greater than the costs (going to jail), he should steal them. If he doesn't, he should allow his wife to die. We all make this same sort of calculation on a smaller scale hundreds of times a day. It's all about what will produce the greatest personal good.

sexdrugsmoney

08-06-2005, 07:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Finally consider Heinz's dilemma.

A man's wife is extremely sick. She will die without treatment. The local pharmacist has a drug that will cure her at a cost of 2000 dollars. After compiling all of his savings and asking everyone he knows for help, the man is only able to procure 1000 dollars. He asks the pharmacist to sell the drug at a discount or allow him to pay back the difference later. The pharmacist says no. Should the man steal the drugs or allow his wife to die?

It's simple. If the man deems the benefits of stealing the drug (his wife's survival) greater than the costs (going to jail), he should steal them. If he doesn't, he should allow his wife to die. We all make this same sort of calculation on a smaller scale hundreds of times a day. It's all about what will produce the greatest personal good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, but if there is no afterlife, and no eternal judgement (of which you can't bribe/evade/escape) then I don't see the point of him gathering $1000 and begging friends, why doesn't he simply make the choice to steal it, and perhaps kill the pharmacist too?

08-06-2005, 09:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Finally consider Heinz's dilemma.

A man's wife is extremely sick. She will die without treatment. The local pharmacist has a drug that will cure her at a cost of 2000 dollars. After compiling all of his savings and asking everyone he knows for help, the man is only able to procure 1000 dollars. He asks the pharmacist to sell the drug at a discount or allow him to pay back the difference later. The pharmacist says no. Should the man steal the drugs or allow his wife to die?

It's simple. If the man deems the benefits of stealing the drug (his wife's survival) greater than the costs (going to jail), he should steal them. If he doesn't, he should allow his wife to die. We all make this same sort of calculation on a smaller scale hundreds of times a day. It's all about what will produce the greatest personal good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, but if there is no afterlife, and no eternal judgement (of which you can't bribe/evade/escape) then I don't see the point of him gathering $1000 and begging friends, why doesn't he simply make the choice to steal it, and perhaps kill the pharmacist too?

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be ignoring all non-monetary costs. The dollars and cents of it are only a small part of the decision (or any decision). Legally gathering the money and purchasing the drug would be less costly than killing the pharmacist. If he kills the pharmacist, he will either have to go to jail or be on the lam for the rest of his life, both of which are presumably more costly than just paying the 2000 dollars.

Why don't atheists rob banks and steal cars all day? The same reasons Christians don't. The potential costs are higher than the potential benefits. Christians will factor in an additional cost- the chance of going to hell- but that's only one cost. Even if you take that particular cost away the costs will still outweigh the benefits for most people. The couple of thousand dollars you might pick up robbing a bank isn't worth decades in jail or ostracism.

I can say this a thousand different ways. Going to hell is only one cost. Eliminating it does nothing to eliminate all of the other costs.

This is generally covered in Chapter 2 of an Econ. 101 textbook. The "textbook" scenario is generally something like:

Bobby is trying to decide if he should go to the movies or study for his math test. He doesn't like studying, but he knows that if he goes to the movies he'll fail his test. What should he do?

Now proceed to make a list of potential costs and benefits for each scenario. Bobby should make whatever choice maximizes his utility. Note that while going to hell isn't a likely cost here, if it was, it wouldn't change a thing. It would simply become another potential cost to be weighed against the benefits.

This is an economic issue. Theology has nothing to do with it.

jthegreat

08-07-2005, 12:51 AM

If there is no afterlife, then no, nothing really makes any difference. I have yet to find an argument around that. /images/graemlins/smile.gif What you do to people doesn't matter since you won't be around to care and they will shortly cease to exist too. So nothing really matters.

lastchance

08-07-2005, 01:26 AM

This argument really bites, and it's been answered time and again. Prisoner's Dilemma is the easy and quick answer to this problem, and you really can't refute it. Maximize utility, and utility often means not killing people for the fun of it.

Jim T

08-07-2005, 01:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Good answer, but different people decide differently what is right and wrong and what matters and what doesn't.

What if one person decided that it was right to do whatever they wished considering quality of life was more important than quantity and it is better to enjoy a shorter life and risk running afoul of the law than to live a 'unguaranteed' longer life in observance with the law?

Would this person be wrong, or would this person be right? Is this train or thought logical, or illogical, and why?

Cheers,
SDM

[/ QUOTE ]

These choices occur all the time. If there is a God, then these same choices would be there. So what is the purpose of God? To be the ultimate policeman, judge and/or enforcer? Sounds tedious.

Essentially, you are begging the question. You are saying that if there isn't a God, then there would be no purpose to life. Therefore, there must be a God. However, why must there be some grand Purpose?

I don't believe there is such a Purpose. I do believe there are many purposes though. A big one was given earlier: having babies.

Going back to your fears of general anarchy without a God (or, at least, FEAR of God), I find them extremely overblown. How many times in your life have you actually made a moral decision due to fear of burning in hell? Not very often, I would assume.

EVERY society in history, with a multitude of religions, have evolved rules of conduct. Clearly there are huge differences between various systems, but why has every group of humans always found a need to enact such rules?

It is because anarchy is terrible to live under. While it might be nice (in theory, at least) to be able take whatever material possession you wanted, bang any woman you saw who struck your fancy, kill anyone who displeased you, etc. ... this ignores the fact that everyone else you meet will be looking to steal YOUR possessions, rape your wife/daughter/sister/mother (or you), kill you, etc.

I am MUCH happier living under our more constrictive system of laws than living such a miserable "free" existence, thank you very much.

Finally, if you find the laws you were "born into" too oppressive, then you can work to change them or move somewhere else with rules that you believe to be better.

PS Christianity makes such concerns you express absurd anyway. Assuming Christianity is correct, the most vile person imaginable (if he's lucky enough to have the time before he dies to repent) can scoot right into heaven while the kindest, lifelong devout Christian you can think of could be struck by lightning while he's thinking, "God damn my neighbor's wife is hot" and be eternally damned to Hell before his body hits the ground.

As you noted, why waste your time being "good" when nothing really matters (but your "state of grace" at the time you die)? Eat, drink, and be merry to the fullest extent you can - just be ready to repent 2 seconds before you die.

NotReady

08-07-2005, 01:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Assuming Christianity is correct, the most vile person imaginable (if he's lucky enough to have the time before he dies to repent) can scoot right into heaven while the kindest, lifelong devout Christian you can think of could be struck by lightning while he's thinking, "God damn my neighbor's wife is hot" and be eternally damned to Hell before his body hits the ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you get this stuff?

Jim T

08-07-2005, 01:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Assuming Christianity is correct, the most vile person imaginable (if he's lucky enough to have the time before he dies to repent) can scoot right into heaven while the kindest, lifelong devout Christian you can think of could be struck by lightning while he's thinking, "God damn my neighbor's wife is hot" and be eternally damned to Hell before his body hits the ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you get this stuff?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible. Pretty ridiculous, isn't it?

NotReady

08-07-2005, 01:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]

The Bible. Pretty ridiculous, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your belief that what you said is in the Bible is pretty ridiculous.

Jim T

08-07-2005, 02:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The Bible. Pretty ridiculous, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your belief that what you said is in the Bible is pretty ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously not verbatim. Are you taking issue with both cases, or only one of them?

Are you saying that there are some sins that Jesus will not redeem? He didn't die for Jeffrey Daumer's sins?

Or are you saying that an unrepentant violator of 2 of the 10 Commandments can make it to Heaven anyway? Are they more like "guidelines" than Commandments?

You might have a point on the second one though. If our true believer really, really, really believed in Jesus, then he might have a "get out of Hell free" card or two up his sleeve. But that leads straight back to the OP's concern about the social aspects of atheism. If a true believer can get away with breaking those two Commandments, why can't one get away with breaking some of the other Commandments that we today would consider a little more important? So we're again left without the social benefits that the OP envisioned theism providing.

xniNja

08-07-2005, 02:57 AM

In my mind self-interest and morality are not necessarily conflicting. I also do not buy the argument stated earlier by Sklansky that "without God there is no morality," and the later referendum that "without God there is no axiomatic morality."

Now, axiomatic morality, in the sense that you couldn't write a self-validating postulate that exumes morality- that could make sense, but isn't innately correct anyway.

Here's an example. (Simple premise/conclusion- basic logic structure, even the Christians should understand.)

A man and a woman on an island decide "morality" is what best suits both of them together, and not solely one or the other.
The woman's sole ability is to climb palm trees for coconuts- which both the man and woman eat/drink.
The man has to choose between fishing and sleeping all day which benefits the man but not the woman.

The both valid and sound conclusion based on these premises, irrelevant of God: "Gathering coconuts and fishing is moral, sleeping all day without contribution is immoral."

sexdrugsmoney

08-07-2005, 03:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
In my mind self-interest and morality are not necessarily conflicting. I also do not buy the argument stated earlier by Sklansky that "without God there is no morality," and the later referendum that "without God there is no axiomatic morality."

Now, axiomatic morality, in the sense that you couldn't write a self-validating postulate that exumes morality- that could make sense, but isn't innately correct anyway.

Here's an example. (Simple premise/conclusion- basic logic structure, even the Christians should understand.)

A man and a woman on an island decide "morality" is what best suits both of them together, and not solely one or the other.
The woman's sole ability is to climb palm trees for coconuts- which both the man and woman eat/drink.
The man has to choose between fishing and sleeping all day which benefits the man but not the woman.

The both valid and sound conclusion based on these premises, irrelevant of God: "Gathering coconuts and fishing is moral, sleeping all day without contribution is immoral."

[/ QUOTE ]

Flawed example.

The man may have to sleep all day to satisfy the woman all night if she is a nymphomaniac.

Checkmate. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

chezlaw

08-07-2005, 03:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It's simple. If the man deems the benefits of stealing the drug (his wife's survival) greater than the costs (going to jail), he should steal them. If he doesn't, he should allow his wife to die. We all make this same sort of calculation on a smaller scale hundreds of times a day. It's all about what will produce the greatest personal good.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the way people make decisions. People don't weigh up 'goodness' values for the various options they follow habit, instinct or instant gratification.

Its not obvious that its a rational way to behave either. Its not all like poker where you can make a reasonable calculation of the value of each decision and choose the one that maximises value. In practice you need:

1) a method of estimating the 'goodness' value of each decision
2) an ordering on the 'goodness' values so you can maximise 'goodness'
3) be able to calculate 1) and 2) fast enough (or in advance) so that the decision isn't compromised or taken out of your hands.

chez

xniNja

08-07-2005, 03:25 AM

Cute, but the example is clearly still valid because a man on a tropical island would always be able to satisfy a woman, especially in theory.

lastchance

08-07-2005, 03:37 AM

sexdrugsmoney

08-07-2005, 03:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Cute, but the example is clearly still valid because a man on a tropical island would always be able to satisfy a woman, especially in theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you are assuming that she only needs penetration once, and therefore any man who is 'equiped' can meet the need.

If she needs more than that, he needs his strength. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

chezlaw

08-07-2005, 03:47 AM

Sorry, to be clearer I should have said 'personal goodness' instead of 'goodness'. I'm not talking about 'me' verses 'others', I'm responding to the idea that people can (or rational should) take the decision that maximises 'personal goodness'

chez

NotReady

08-07-2005, 08:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Are you taking issue with both cases, or only one of them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both.
1. Though it's technically correct that if someone repents and coverts just before death he will be saved (the thief on the cross), it's a huge mistake to assume that anyone who knows they ought to repent but refuses to do so will be able to anytime they decide. There are verses in the Bible that warn about the hardening of the heart and the impossibility of repentence.

2. I believe in the eternal security of the believer phrased as perseverance of the saints by Reformed theology. Once someone has repented and been forgiven he will not then be condemned when (not if) he subsequently sins. And no, he doesn't have a license to sin - the same idea was around even while the New Testament was being written and is answered by it.

[ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that there are some sins that Jesus will not redeem?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is an unforgivable sin which orthodox Christianity has always tied to the idea of absolute refusal to repent and believe - it's called blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. All other sins can be forgiven.

[ QUOTE ]

He didn't die for Jeffrey Daumer's sins?

[/ QUOTE ]

The nature of the atonement is another question. If Daumer had repented and believed, he would be saved.

[ QUOTE ]

Or are you saying that an unrepentant violator of 2 of the 10 Commandments can make it to Heaven anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

No one who has not repented of his sins will be saved. But once he is a true believer his salvation is assured.

The rest of your post demonstrates you don't understand the nature of sin and redemption. Salvation is not a "get out of Hell free" card. It involves escaping eternal punishment but that's only part of the story. And sin isn't just something we like to do that God arbitrarily forbids. Our sin sent the Son of God to the cross. God takes it more seriously than just the violation of an arbitrary fiat.

08-07-2005, 02:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's simple. If the man deems the benefits of stealing the drug (his wife's survival) greater than the costs (going to jail), he should steal them. If he doesn't, he should allow his wife to die. We all make this same sort of calculation on a smaller scale hundreds of times a day. It's all about what will produce the greatest personal good.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the way people make decisions. People don't weigh up 'goodness' values for the various options they follow habit, instinct or instant gratification.

Its not obvious that its a rational way to behave either. Its not all like poker where you can make a reasonable calculation of the value of each decision and choose the one that maximises value. In practice you need:

1) a method of estimating the 'goodness' value of each decision
2) an ordering on the 'goodness' values so you can maximise 'goodness'
3) be able to calculate 1) and 2) fast enough (or in advance) so that the decision isn't compromised or taken out of your hands.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously people don't break out a pencil and a piece of paper every time they need to make a decision. We don't consciously think about a lot of these decisions. That's because we've made them so many times before we already know which choice will maximize utility. Here's an interactive example that everyone at home can play along with. Just read the following:

Self, should I smash my head against the wall, or continue reading this post?

If you're reading this, you chose not to smash your head against the wall, and you probably made your decision without the use of a writing utensil. Congratulations, you've made one more decision in a chain of billions that you'll make throughout your life, all without putting anything paper. You might call this habit or instinct. Each of which has been ingrained in you since the day you were born.

Now on to instant gratification. When you decide to instantly gratify yourself it's because you've decided that it's better than the alternative. Let's look at another example.

Johnny decides to get drunk. He gets completely wasted and has a great time. The next morning he wakes up with a pounding headache and says to himself: "I really wish I hadn't gotten drunk last night." Of course, he got drunk because he thought the immediate gain (drunkenness) was greater than the side effect (hangover). If hangovers were deadly, he probably wouldn't have gotten drunk, because it wouldn't have been worth it. Recognize that words don't mean anything here- actions are everything. People ALWAYS act to maximize their utility.

Finally the concept of goodness. If it means anything to someone they will weigh it when making decisions. If it doesn't, they won't. Plenty of God-fearing Christians commit crimes and do "ungood" things every day. Why? Because they've deemed that the short-term benefits trump any potential goodness issues they'll run into. Most of this is done without really thinking about it, but it happens.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe in the eternal security of the believer phrased as perseverance of the saints by Reformed theology. Once someone has repented and been forgiven he will not then be condemned when (not if) he subsequently sins.

[/ QUOTE ]

This can be argued both ways, but for starters....

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die...

Ezekiel 18:21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

Ezekiel 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

08-07-2005, 03:22 PM

Theism is the belief in a god or gods. The prefix "A" means "without". The term atheism means without belief in a god or gods. Atheism is the absence of theistic belief. Atheism is not a belief system, it is the absence of a belief system. You need to study ontology and epistemology, the two major branches of philosophy, to even begin a rational discourse on this subject. Many people become confused on this subject because they do not understand how to validate knowledge claims. If you do not, at the very least, know and understand the 3 laws of logic, then coming to valid conclusions will be impossible, and that is just the beginning of the long road to a fully rational animal.

chezlaw

08-07-2005, 03:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Now on to instant gratification. When you decide to instantly gratify yourself it's because you've decided that it's better than the alternative. Let's look at another example.

Johnny decides to get drunk. He gets completely wasted and has a great time. The next morning he wakes up with a pounding headache and says to himself: "I really wish I hadn't gotten drunk last night." Of course, he got drunk because he thought the immediate gain (drunkenness) was greater than the side effect (hangover). If hangovers were deadly, he probably wouldn't have gotten drunk, because it wouldn't have been worth it. Recognize that words don't mean anything here- actions are everything. People ALWAYS act to maximize their utility.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont see how you have decided that he considered the consequences? His behavior is entirely consistent with not considering the consequences and just doing what felt good at the time.

Picking extreme examples (like the death penalty for drinking) does not help you case. Obviously an extreme punishment may scare people but so what.

[ QUOTE ]
People ALWAYS act to maximize their utility.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, as I said before, its not obvious that there is an ordering on utility or that is possible to put a utility value against the options.

Secondly, what makes you think people think the way you claim. If you're going to use capitals for 'always' you should at least be able to show that the behavoir isn't consistent with something else. Personally, when I get drunk I'm not normally considering the hangover.

If you remove the consequences from your argument then its hard to disagree with it. We do what seems best at the time, sometimes that involves considering some of the consequences.

I'm going to bang my head against a wall now. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

magates

08-07-2005, 04:53 PM

08-07-2005, 06:50 PM

Chez- Obviously I'm not explaining this very well. You're not thinking about utility economically. Here are a few more responses:

[ QUOTE ]
I dont see how you have decided that he considered the consequences? His behavior is entirely consistent with not considering the consequences and just doing what felt good at the time.

Picking extreme examples (like the death penalty for drinking) does not help you case. Obviously an extreme punishment may scare people but so what.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about the death penalty. I'm not talking about punishment for a crime. All I'm trying to say is that if the negatives outweigh the positives, people avoid the behavior.

This is entirely beside the point and it's probably only further clouding my argument, but let's say that Johnny had a liver condition and it caused him to die if he drank. He'd avoid drinking because the benefits (having a good time) would be far less than the costs (dying).

It seems that you are still thinking of costs and benefits (utility) in much too literal a manner. People do whatever they think is best at the time. That's maximizing utility. Does this mean that they will always obtain the greatest good in the long run? No, but that doesn't matter. People maximize utility moment by moment.

[ QUOTE ]
First, as I said before, its not obvious that there is an ordering on utility or that is possible to put a utility value against the options.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say it's obvious. Economists have struggled with quantifying non-monetary utility. But we don't have to quantify it or put it on paper to know that it exists. Again here it seems you're not thinking of utility in an economic sense. Don't think of it as a long-term good/bad concept. Rather think of it in the here and now. People take all the information they have available to them at the moment and make a utility maximizing decision. Could this be the "wrong decision" from the perspective of an outsider? Absolutely, but that doesn't matter. People maximize utility individually each and every moment.

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, what makes you think people think the way you claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Centuries of economic theory.

[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to use capitals for 'always' you should at least be able to show that the behavoir isn't consistent with something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

ALWAYS. I can show it; read an econ textbook.

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, when I get drunk I'm not normally considering the hangover.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me neither. That was just an example. That fact that you don't think about the hangover before getting drunk does absolutely nothing to refute my argument. You take all the information you have available at the moment and make a decision. Whatever is best at the moment is what you do. Remember, don't look at this from the long-term perspective of an outsider, think of this internally. Internally you've decided the the short-term gains make the activity worth it.

If people didn't maximize utility we could throw supply and demand (along with our entire economic system) out the window. People maximize utility- ALWAYS.

chezlaw

08-07-2005, 07:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You're not thinking about utility economically

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, I'm trying to think about it logically.

[ QUOTE ]
ALWAYS. I can show it; read an econ textbook.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh come on if you can show it then show it! I haven't read the textbook but tell me that utility theory doesn't make assumptions. Doesn't utility theory produces a model of the real world, I am questioning whether that model is correct or even possible.

Its like the economic theory of the perfect market. The soundness of the conclusions of this theory depend on how well the theory matches the real world. Clearly, at best, this theory is only an approximation to the real world. Same is true of most science where you produce a model of the world from which you can prove things but the key question is how correct is the model.

[ QUOTE ]
Me neither. That was just an example. That fact that you don't think about the hangover before getting drunk does absolutely nothing to refute my argument. You take all the information you have available at the moment and make a decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, how do you know someone isn't ignoring information that is available. This is more of a cognitive question than an economic one but if people do ignore information then any economic theory that assumes they don't is likely to be pretty poor.

If all you are saying is that people take into account what they take into account then I have to conceed that is true.

[ QUOTE ]
If people didn't maximize utility we could throw supply and demand (along with our entire economic system) out the window. People maximize utility- ALWAYS

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?. Isn't demand a function of what people decide they want, not how they decide what they want?

chez

carlo

08-07-2005, 08:00 PM

Your concept of a utility which is best for the individual will allow any and all acts. You assume that the act in and of itself whether good or bad will satisfy the individual in the moment and therefore is universal.This is just another "if it feels good-do it" type of understanding.With your understanding one may seek punishment and pain as for this person the utility may be the greatest in their life at the present time.

The real problem here is that economic thinking is brought into the religious/spiritual sphere.The concept of utility is an amoral precipice which only works in the economic sphere. The moment one considers morals,morality, good and evil, etc. utility has left its rightful sphere. The economic sphere "works the earth" while the spiritual/religious is concerned with the heavens. Religion is the attempt to reunite with the spiritual world and in this respect the underlying "longing" of the human soul is thus reaching the spiritual realm from which he has come.

Morality is not man-made nor should it be considered to be that which is demanded from without. In that case, especially during our time the moral maxims of our legal system are exactly that which consider only the earth and makes slaves of us all.

Moral maxims are brought to mankind by great leaders who are spiritually ensconced and present them to the world. It could be said that all that most people are arguing about is no more than a mixture of these various "concepts of activity".

An example of the above is the great Buddha who brought the "teachings of love" to the world. This was spiritually endowed and if you wish to learn of love study Buddhism--you can have no better teacher.

If the hackles of the Christians has been aroused by the consideration of Buddha and love I would offer that the Christ activity would better be called a "Christ Impulse" which continues in time in the actual hearts of men. Yes, Buddha was a great teacher who sits at the feet of the Christ Being as the willing student.

The separation into of folk,race,religious sects,nationalities,etc. is an extension of spiritual activity and a working of the Christ Impulse is the bringing together of all of these activities. For those who believe this will be instantaneous consider that Christianity is just in its infancy for one cannot by force demand this perspective to each human being as a father to his 8 year old son but each man works his way through the Lucerfic activity and in the process man approaches his return to the spirit individually.

This school work is accomplished over many lives but that IS another story.

regards,
carlo

08-07-2005, 08:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Again, how do you know someone isn't ignoring information that is available.

[/ QUOTE ]

In order to ignore something you must be aware of its existence. If you're aware of something's existence, you've taken it into account (in an economic sense). That awareness may not change your ultimate decision, but you still acknowledged it.

[ QUOTE ]
oh come on if you can show it then show it! I haven't read the textbook but tell me that utility theory doesn't make assumptions. Doesn't utility theory produces a model of the real world, I am questioning whether that model is correct or even possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the textbook. At this point putting my responses up on giant neon signs probably wouldn't convince you. People maximize their utility because it makes absolutely no sense not to maximize your utility. Remember, this is more than just tangible, monetary utility. You consider the information and make your decision. Maybe you're getting hung up on the idea that people do things that it seems they don't want to do. For example, I don't know want to go to work tomorrow. But if I don't go to work I won't get a paycheck. And if I don't get a paycheck I'll starve. Hence not going to work wouldn't maximize my utility.

[ QUOTE ]
Why?. Isn't demand a function of what people decide they want, not how they decide what they want?

[/ QUOTE ]

If people aren't maximizing utility they aren't acting rationally. If they aren't acting rationally they won't attempt to maximize profits. And if a supplier isn't trying to maximize profits he won't react to changes in demand, etc... People have to be acting rationally for the model to work.

This thread needs to die, soon.

chezlaw

08-07-2005, 08:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If people aren't maximizing utility they aren't acting rationally. If they aren't acting rationally they won't attempt to maximize profits. And if a supplier isn't trying to maximize profits he won't react to changes in demand, etc... People have to be acting rationally for the model to work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok lets let it die. This paragraph is so full of assumptions that I can't make any progress unless you will try to tell me why they are true.

And your right neon signs won't work however large. If you know these assumption (and the others) must be true then you must have sound logical arguments to support them.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you're getting hung up on the idea that people do things that it seems they don't want to do. For example, I don't know want to go to work tomorrow. But if I don't go to work I won't get a paycheck. And if I don't get a paycheck I'll starve. Hence not going to work wouldn't maximize my utility.

[/ QUOTE ]

This so far from the point I am making that I assume I have failed to explain my point.

chez

08-07-2005, 08:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ok lets let it die.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok it's dead. Just as soon as you crack open that Econ textbook let me know. Feel free to have the last last word.

Jim T

08-07-2005, 10:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"There doesn't need to be a god in order for there to be morality"

Yes there does. Even people who do what they consider "moral" when they don't "feel" like it or don't "benefit" from it are are not really being inherently moral. They are deriving what might be called "second level" pleasure or satisfaction from their willpower (See PGL) or their ability to make "morality" the most important human endeavor. But it is still selfish. And these same people were often slaveowners.

[/ QUOTE ]

? Let's take three different cases:

1. There is a God. An atheist independently arrives at a personal moral code that agrees completely with that of said God and follows it in all respects. Is he acting morally? From the above, I think you would answer, "No".

2. There is a God. Someone who believes in the "wrong" god follows the dictates of his own religion, which is different from the "real" God, to the letter. Is he acting morally? Would the answer be different if the moral code of his religion was identical to that of the "real" God?

3. There isn't a God. A strongly religious person follows what he believes his religion requires of him to the Nth degree. Is he acting morally?

PS If someone feels satisfaction from following his own moral code in the face of strong temptation towards a differnt action, why does that automatically preclude them from being "moral"? I find that sentiment highly distasteful.

BTW, you do realize that under your definition of morality, (almost?) all religious people would also not be acting morally. They can feel a more or less identical feeling of satisfaction (or even superiority) by acting by their religion's dictates. Plus the selfish motive of wishing to go to heaven (not to mention avoid hell).

So I don't see why the introduction of a god creates the possibility of some "true" morality.

Jim T

08-07-2005, 10:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is an unforgivable sin which orthodox Christianity has always tied to the idea of absolute refusal to repent and believe - it's called blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. All other sins can be forgiven.

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding is that in Christianity repentence of sins and belief in Jesus Christ are the only way to salvation in the first place. So that "unforgivable sin" is sort of redundant, isn't it? Without repentence and belief, none of the other sins will be forgiven anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
But once he is a true believer his salvation is assured.

[/ QUOTE ]

So we're again back to the issue that the OP first raised, and the Christian religion isn't a check on much of anything of an anti-social nature. Once you are a true believer, you are saved no matter what horrible things you may have done in the past (or even do in the future).

[ QUOTE ]
Salvation is not a "get out of Hell free" card. It involves escaping eternal punishment but that's only part of the story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Six of one, half a dozen of another. It was a trifle polemical, but easily accurate enough for purposes of debate.

NotReady

08-07-2005, 11:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]

So that "unforgivable sin" is sort of redundant, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think it's redundant? God forgives all sins but total rejection of His offer of forgiveness. What does redundancy have to do with it?

[ QUOTE ]

So we're again back to the issue that the OP first raised, and the Christian religion isn't a check on much of anything of an anti-social nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

The check isn't the purpose, salvation is the purpose. And of course it's a check on anti-social behavior. Why would you think otherwise?

[ QUOTE ]

Once you are a true believer, you are saved no matter what horrible things you may have done in the past (or even do in the future).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is formally true. But salvation is not a license to sin. You weren't the first to bring this up. It was a heresy already being stated during the time the NT was being written, and is addressed by the authors of the NT.

[ QUOTE ]

Six of one, half a dozen of another. It was a trifle polemical, but easily accurate enough for purposes of debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Six of what, half a dozen of what?

David Sklansky

08-08-2005, 03:21 AM

Once you are a true believer, you are saved no matter what horrible things you may have done in the past (or even do in the future).

This is formally true. But salvation is not a license to sin.

Don't you mean that salvation is not MEANT to be a license to sin. But unless I'm misunderstanding, in practice it would be.

warlockjd

08-08-2005, 03:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If there is no afterlife, then all these people meet the same end, and to me that is illogical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is more illogical to believe that life has meaning or afterlife consequences or that there is some magical Creator Fairy.

NotReady

08-08-2005, 03:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Don't you mean that salvation is not MEANT to be a license to sin. But unless I'm misunderstanding, in practice it would be.

[/ QUOTE ]

1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
2May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?

David Sklansky

08-08-2005, 03:50 AM

Translation please.

Jim T

08-08-2005, 10:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So that "unforgivable sin" is sort of redundant, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think it's redundant? God forgives all sins but total rejection of His offer of forgiveness. What does redundancy have to do with it?

As I said in the previous post, you aren't forgiven your OTHER sins without repentence and belief, so this 'unforgivable sin' is therefore redundant.

[ QUOTE ]

So we're again back to the issue that the OP first raised, and the Christian religion isn't a check on much of anything of an anti-social nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

The check isn't the purpose, salvation is the purpose. And of course it's a check on anti-social behavior. Why would you think otherwise?

Because you can engage in just about any reprehensible behavior imaginable and still be saved. Therefore there is no check on said behavior. Are you awake? Or are you just being intentionally obtuse?

[ QUOTE ]

Once you are a true believer, you are saved no matter what horrible things you may have done in the past (or even do in the future).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is formally true. But salvation is not a license to sin. You weren't the first to bring this up. It was a heresy already being stated during the time the NT was being written, and is addressed by the authors of the NT.

Well yes, it is an obvious problem. However, I've never seen it addressed satisfactorily. You certainly haven't.

[ QUOTE ]

Six of one, half a dozen of another. It was a trifle polemical, but easily accurate enough for purposes of debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Six of what, half a dozen of what?

Old saying or figure of speech. Look it up

[/ QUOTE ]

NotReady

08-08-2005, 11:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Well yes, it is an obvious problem. However, I've never seen it addressed satisfactorily. You certainly haven't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I get the feeling nothing will satisfy you.

NotReady

08-08-2005, 11:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Translation please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trusting in Christ is just the beginning of a new life. God doesn't say "Fine, you believed, now you're saved, see you in heaven." He begins to deal with you on a daily basis. Sin becomes less and less attractive. Your understanding of the reality and cost of the cross increases and you begin to hate the part you've played that made it necessary. You begin to "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling because it is God who works in you" and you find out that "Whom the Lord loves, He disciplines".

God gives the believer a new heart and the gift of the Holy Spirit. We get a taste of the life to come and the joy and peace included in that life. We begin to "bring every thought into captivity for Christ". Our entire life begins to change, our attitudes, our beliefs, our goals, our hopes, our desires. We are no longer the slaves of sin but the Lord's freeman. We are no longer free to sin but the Lord's slave.

So how shall one who "died to sin still live in it?"

Duke

08-08-2005, 04:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If there is no afterlife, then all these people meet the same end, and to me that is illogical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your problem isn't atheism, it's logic.

~D

Jim T

08-08-2005, 05:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well yes, it is an obvious problem. However, I've never seen it addressed satisfactorily. You certainly haven't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I get the feeling nothing will satisfy you.

[/ QUOTE ]

A valid response would.

If there isn't one, then you are right - no matter how many invalid answers you may supply, none would satisfy me.

PairTheBoard

08-08-2005, 07:11 PM

Sklansky --
[ QUOTE ]
Once you are a true believer, you are saved no matter what horrible things you may have done in the past (or even do in the future).

This is formally true. But salvation is not a license to sin.

Don't you mean that salvation is not MEANT to be a license to sin. But unless I'm misunderstanding, in practice it would be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try this logic:

A <--> Z
A --> B
Therefore
~B --> ~A
and
~B --> ~Z

Can we agree the above is logical?

Now let,
A = Belief and Repentence
Z = Salvation
B = Good works and attempt to reduce sinful behavior
~B = Sinning as if with a licence to sin.

What's the problem? Given this settup why do insist that therefore

Z --> ~B

It's not logical.

PairTheBoard

NotReady

08-08-2005, 07:13 PM

Speak english.

PairTheBoard

08-08-2005, 07:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Speak english.

[/ QUOTE ]

A necessary and sufficient condition for Salvation is Belief and Repentence. Belief and Repentence produces good works and an attempt to reduce sinful behavior. Sinning as if with a licencse to sin is the negative or opposite of good works and an attempt to reduce sinful behavior. Therefore, Sklansky's insistence that Salvation provides a license to sin is illogical. In fact, just the opposite is the case. Sinning as if with a license to sin implies there is no real belief and repentence and therefore no salvation.

Just trying to moderate the logic here, which David seems to be falling down on.

PairTheBoard

NotReady

08-08-2005, 08:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Just trying to moderate the logic here, which Da vid seems to be falling down on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotcha. What are the words for:

-->

<-->

and

~

?

Thanks.

PairTheBoard

08-08-2005, 08:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Just trying to moderate the logic here, which Da vid seems to be falling down on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotcha. What are the words for:

-->

<-->

and

~

?

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

--> means "implies"
<--> means "if and only if"
~ means "not"
? is just a question mark. As in, ????. Or, ??. Or even, ???. Sometimes denoting something questionable in the statement preceding it.

PairTheBoard

Angrymoog

08-08-2005, 08:30 PM

GOD: \"Hmmm, I think ill create the Earth and Mankind this week. I could create them to do exactly as I\'d like, but what fun would that be? No, I\'ll give them free will, and then punish them when they don\'t have faith in me.\"

What a character.

sexdrugsmoney

08-09-2005, 05:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there is no afterlife, then all these people meet the same end, and to me that is illogical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is more illogical to believe that life has meaning or afterlife consequences or that there is some magical Creator Fairy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people have said I don't understand Atheism, others have said my logic is flawed, but I have given reasons for my answers and to me they seem logical.

Now they may be not, if so I'll gladly change my thinking, but an 'off the cuff' comment won't do it.

You see, while the Enlightenment gave as rational thnking etc, and we should use our 'reasoning' only, then the belief in an afterlife with no evidence to support it would be illogical no?

Ok, but if there is no afterlife then what does our life mean? Why are we the only animal to be so advanced in terms of technology and conscience?

You may say 'the meaning of life is to reproduce' or 'the meaning of life is have fun' or 'I don't know what the meaning is'.

Whatever the answer, if the meaning is here, but obeying or disobeying both have no consequence then one can reject that meaning without punishment and follow their own path, whatever it may be.

I see life has having no grand purpose as illogical. I think it's more logical to believe in a God that may be jealous, a God that may be mean at times, than to believe in nothing.

Nietchze said Christianity is a nihlistic religion because it places importance on the afterlife, but if Christianity is wrong, and so are all religions and the meaning of this life is 'reproduction' or some other crap like that, then life itself is nihlistic because nothing means anything, everything is subjective and the only thing guaranteed is that one day you will die, therefore its logical to live whichever way will put a smile on you face for as long as you are living ... there are no guarantees, there are no boundaries, if it feels good, do it ... irregardless of how monsterous your desires may be.

One person mentioned 'would you like to live in a world without laws etc' ... no ofcourse not, this is why Anarchism has never worked and will never work, because certain people would abuse it for their own good, and others would cower in fear and be quick to give up their personal powers to someone to 'protect them' (enter Feudalism and Governments again)

But all throughout human history, people have given the power that is within 'their hands' up to something else - be it a tribal leader, a God(s), Monarchy, or Government.

People are by nature good slaves who are easily duped and pacified into submission by fear or greed, which is why this type of thinking (ie- that life means nothing, do what you want, no right/wrong, no good/evil etc) will never be recieved by the masses, especially when those in control know the ramifications would lead to chaos and them losing power. (which is of real importance)

I know Athiesm means belief in no god, but logically that means a belief in no afterlife right?

And that's my point, no afterlife = this life means nothing, and therefore you can do whatever you want. (and even some things you don't want to do but its smart to do them to obtain something else you want - think contract killing etc)

Need money? Break into your neighbours apartment, steal her money and kill her and her children. (I shudder to say you could rape them too, its all the same if life means nothing, and your 'empathy' is meaningless anyway ... if you have any)

What does it matter, we are all doomed anyway, and right and wrong could just be programming instilled into you by your parents who were in turn programmed by their parents (repeat ad nauseum) right back to that set of parents who believed their tribal elder when he said he spoke to God and that God said 'murder and theft was wrong MMkay?'.

Logical? (if not, rebut, I will listen)

Cheers,
SDM

David Sklansky

08-09-2005, 07:53 PM

"therefore its logical to live whichever way will put a smile on you face for as long as you are living ... there are no guarantees, there are no boundaries, if it feels good, do it ... irregardless of how monsterous your desires may be."

That is exactly right. That is how animals behave. That is how everyone behaves. Except that sometimes humans (and even animals instinctively) realize that postponing gratification results in more feelgoodness in the long run. So they don't take heroin. And because of jail, if nothing else, they don't rape. Sometimes they don't do monstrous things because evolution has made those things so repulsive to them that the net result makes them feel not good about doing it even if they can get away with it. Occasionally someone who is not repulsed, is sure he can get away with it, and would feel good if he did, still will not do the deed because he knows intellectually it is wrong by his philosophy and he FEELS GOOD when he is true to his intelletual philosophy and avoids an action, monstrous to others, that otherwise he feels no need to avoid.

There are a rare few of course who have no will power to delay gratification, no intelligence to see that they will probably get caught, no disgust at their own actions, and no personal philosophy that includes anything like the Golden Rule. Those people we want to believe in God.

sexdrugsmoney

08-09-2005, 08:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes they don't do monstrous things because evolution has made those things so repulsive to them that the net result makes them feel not good about doing it even if they can get away with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

David, thankyou for your reply.

Could you elaborate on the above re: Evolution, specifically has it been proven that Evolution can do this. (if so where can I read more about it?)

Why do I ask this?

Well I seem to have the view that children are 'blank slates' and recieve all their programming about how the world works and how to communicate in it from their parents.

We see the teaching and experiences they have in the early stages of their life shapes who they will be, sometimes with terrible effects.

This is why I ask if evolution has been proven to weed out certain desires.

Example: Doctor A wants to make a child do "act 1" (Could be cannibalism, killer, rapist, thief, take your pick) and from the early stages of the child's life he/she is surrounded by a community where they partake and celebrate this monsterous act he/she is both a part of and/or exposed to. But what if Evolution has weeded out the desire for that action?

Now the act the child is partaking of/experiencing is supposibly "at odds" with his biological programming (Evolution) so will the child when immediately exposed to it (say at 2 years old) rebel against it, or willit take a longer time, maybe at puberty for his evolution to 'kick in' and enlighten him that all he knows is wrong?

Cheers,
SDM

maurile

08-09-2005, 08:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Could you elaborate on the above re: Evolution, specifically has it been proven that Evolution can do this. (if so where can I read more about it?)

[/ QUOTE ]
The subject is treated well in Matt Ridley's The Origins of Virtue (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140264450/).

[ QUOTE ]
Why do I ask this?

Well I seem to have the view that children are 'blank slates' and recieve all their programming about how the world works and how to communicate in it from their parents.

[/ QUOTE ]
You will be disabused of this notion if you read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0142003344/).

[ QUOTE ]
Example: Doctor A wants to make a child do "act 1" (Could be cannibalism, killer, rapist, thief, take your pick) and from the early stages of the child's life he/she is surrounded by a community where they partake and celebrate this monsterous act he/she is both a part of and/or exposed to. But what if Evolution has weeded out the desire for that action?

[/ QUOTE ]
Evolution, and more to the point, human psychology, ain't that simple.