Atheists, lets get real

[ataraxia]

while its not neccessary, why would that debunk God?

It doesn’t. It just makes Him unnecessary- scientifically and mathematically.

religon is needed

Why? We seem to agree that it is not needed from a scientific/mathematical perspective. Are you thinking it is needed in terms of morals?

 

[watsup]

I've never believed in any supernatural entities, or gods, or anything else, and have swung from the militant strong atheist side to the more accepting weak atheist side. But more importantly, I have come to realize that atheism leaves a huge hole in most peoples hearts and I cannot expect most people to just moral or logical. I see the same mistakes that I made being made by people like Sam Harris who assume that most people are logical and rational and do not need theism if only they would be properly taught. This is a huge fallacy and the failure of this train of thought is on display daily on the streets of our cities, and the evidence of the horror of atheism is seen throughout the 20th century. No thanks, I'd rather pretend to believe and be ruled by a fundamentalist (preferably Christian as opposed to others) than any society run by insane leftists who make humanism and their ideological platform a religion, if those are my only two choices, thankfully that is not the case, yet.




I'm just missing the gene, don't hold it against me, I'm sure God won't, if he's around.

Exactly what problem do you have with Humanism? It is simply the ethical construct of atheism which says that God is not needed for ethics, that reason is enough. The fact that most people are not logical as you say is not a reason to throw Humanism in the wastebasket.

And leftists are not insane, that's just a slur. Are you saying that Republicans do not also engage in a form of religion in which they show unerring fidelity to an Orange Man who is an incompetent adulterer who doesn't know truth from lies? Does that make him a role model? How?

 

[ataraxia]

infinite regress math

Positing a god doesn’t help, because you are still left with having to explain where He came from. And if you can say “well He just is”, why can’t you say that about the universe?

 

[TypicalRussian]

what can you carefully dig up and analyze that shows the claims that a god exists are true?

already linked

 

[NWO_Spook]

I've never believed in any supernatural entities, or gods, or anything else, and have swung from the militant strong atheist side to the more accepting weak atheist side. But more importantly, I have come to realize that atheism leaves a huge hole in most peoples hearts and I cannot expect most people to just moral or logical. I see the same mistakes that I made being made by people like Sam Harris who assume that most people are logical and rational and do not need theism if only they would be properly taught. This is a huge fallacy and the failure of this train of thought is on display daily on the streets of our cities, and the evidence of the horror of atheism is seen throughout the 20th century. No thanks, I'd rather pretend to believe and be ruled by a fundamentalist (preferably Christian as opposed to others) than any society run by insane leftists who make humanism and their ideological platform a religion, if those are my only two choices, thankfully that is not the case, yet.

I'm just missing the gene, don't hold it against me, I'm sure God won't, if he's around.

The 'atheist atrocities fallacy'.

The Atheist Atrocities Fallacy – Hitler, Stalin & Pol Pot | Richard Dawkins Foundation

 

[blarg]

infinite regress math

infinity is impossible in math? you will have to show me your source on that

but keep in mind im proposing that the ultimate origin you prefer need not necessarily be a god

 

[blarg]

copy and paste

you have yet to address it thats why


any god seems more unlikely than a universe without one since your adding more things that could be different


selecting a single god in this case the christian god seems more unlikely since your adding more things that can be different

 

[blarg]

already linked

not any place between where i asked you and your post here its not

what can you carefully dig up and analyze that shows the claims that a god exists are true?

 

[Quag]

agnotocism is flawed

Every argument to try and prove God is flawed and thus fails to prove anything

 

[MrWonka]

Lets assume at some point you were a Christian,Muslim, or Jew

Why did you switch to atheism?

The pure and simple fact that there are Christians, Muslims, and Jews means there is a **** load of people all over the world who are definitely 100% wrong about god.

If there was an all-knowing, all-powerful being out there that wanted us to worship him and obey his word it would be nonsensically stupid for him to not do more to make sure
people knew which god was correct and clear up any confusion. The fact he does not in and of itself is proof that there isn't one at all.

You're telling me there is a magical all-powerful all-knowing being out there who wants us to worship him and obey his word yet he has chosen to diseminate is word using the world's oldest and biggest game of telephone?
One that has constantly been perverted, re-written, voted on, fought over, corrupted, and used for evil over and over again throughout time?

Nope, the more logical conclusion is that is all bull**** derived from ancient tribal stories used to explain things to children that the adults couldn't explain. They used stories of Zues, the Argus, Jesus or whoever the same way parents today
use Santa Claus. They used them to try and scare and manipulate people into behaving the way they want them to.

 

[Somerville]

? she carries David's genes that's how.

That's not the way the Jewish people thought back at the time. The 'seed' could only be passed down the line of fathers.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

That's not the way the Jewish people thought back at the time. The 'seed' could only be passed down the line of fathers.

How did you establish that belief? where did you find out about what "they" thought all those years ago?

 

[Daisy]

That is not true and the Bible supports that in other events besides Jesus...

Just as in Luke’s account, Joseph is called the “son of Heli,” evidently meaning that he is Heli’s son-in-law, is supported elsewhere in scriptures...for example, Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel...although Zerubbabel is frequently called “the son of Shealtiel” in Ezra 3:2, 8; 5:2; Nehemiah 12:1; Haggai 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 23 and Matthew 1:12, he is once identified as one of “the sons of Pedaiah,” a brother of Shealtiel in 1 Chronicles 3:17-19...Zerubbabel was likely the natural son of Pedaiah, but it seems that he was legally considered as the son of Shealtiel...if Pedaiah died when his son Zerubbabel was a boy, Pedaiah’s oldest brother, Shealtiel, might have raised Zerubbabel as his own son or if Shealtiel died childless and Pedaiah performed levirate marriage on his behalf, the son of Pedaiah by Shealtiel’s wife would have been reckoned as Shealtiel’s legal heir...it was quite common to refer to the father/son relationship as being the one who raised the son, not necessarily the biological father of the son...

There is also the example of Shealtiel, son of Neri...according to 1 Chronicles 3:17 and Matthew 1:12, Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah, not Neri...Shealtie more than likely married Neri’s daughter, thus becoming his son-in-law, and could therefore be called the “son of Neri"...it was not uncommon in Hebrew genealogical listings to speak of a son-in-law as a son...so in a similar way, Luke apparently called Joseph “son of Heli,” Mary’s father.​...

 

[Somerville]

How did you establish that belief? where did you find out about what "they" thought all those years ago?

By doing a bit of reading. Basically, until the destruction of the Temple and the change from a priest-led faith to that of the rabbis, only the patrilineal descent was seen as valid, in particular for the priestly and royal families. Following the persecutions and the beginning of the Diaspora, Jewishness was passed down thru the matrilineal line. Today there is division between Orthodox/Conservative and Reformed Jewish theology on this matter of deciding who is a Jew from birth.

 

[Trypt]

Exactly what problem do you have with Humanism? It is simply the ethical construct of atheism which says that God is not needed for ethics, that reason is enough. The fact that most people are not logical as you say is not a reason to throw Humanism in the wastebasket.

I'm not sure you read my post. I agree with you, but such philosophies cannot work. I myself tango with humanism and objectivism, both moral systems based on rationality, and I believe it is possible for individuals, but never for societies, as people hunger for more and will create authoritarian versions of said ideologies instantly.

 

[Somerville]

I'm not sure you read my post. I agree with you, but such philosophies cannot work. I myself tango with humanism and objectivism, both moral systems based on rationality, and I believe it is possible for individuals, but never for societies, as people hunger for more and will create authoritarian versions of said ideologies instantly.

How can a society based on humanist principles become authoritarian? Has religion ever stopped societies from becoming authoritarian?

RationalWiki has a 'nice post' on Objectivism but it seems that the originator of "objectivism", Ayn Rand, didn't much care for Libertarians

I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis. I don’t think they’re as funny as Professor Hospers and the Libertarian Party.
—Ayn Rand[24]

Rand is often lumped in with libertarians due to their similar political views. However, Rand had a well-known hatred of libertarians and the Libertarian Party. She declared that they plagiarized her ideas when it suited them (ha!) and besmirched her name when it didn't. She resented the fact that while many libertarians endorsed her politics, they refused to swallow whole the rest of her philosophy — epistemology, ethics, and all. She also dissociated herself from libertarianism because of the presence of anarcho-capitalists and religious libertarians within the movement.[25]

We can all rest easy knowing that Rand is likely spinning in her grave over the fact that Wikipedia considers objectivism "Part of a series on Libertarianism".

24] Ayn Rand's Q & A on Libertarianism, The Ayn Rand Institute
25] Libertarians, Ayn Rand Lexicon

 

[Trypt]

How can a society based on humanist principles become authoritarian? Has religion ever stopped societies from becoming authoritarian?

RationalWiki has a 'nice post' on Objectivism but it seems that the originator of "objectivism", Ayn Rand, didn't much care for Libertarians

Like any other ideology that is firm, it will not tolerate any dissent. I get it, once you get rid of all the undesirables, it seems doable, but even then I doubt it as human nature will not allow it. I can see it working if humans are totally genetically engineered into an ideology, but who wants that, it would be no different from a society of AI's or robots with no free will or anything resembling a "soul", or consciousness, if you prefer.

As far as tyranny or totalitarianism, even the most libertarian society would be called tyrannical and totalitarian by those who want more social or economic control of the economy, as is evident by how liberals view tax and social program cuts, especially if done by executive order (amazingly, they don't mind spending via the same method). Liberals see an authority figure cutting the size of gov't as authoritarian and tyrannical. I've heard Democrats and Republicans recently calling Trump a tyrant for wanting to bring troops home. I've seen one parent call the other insensitive and a tyrant for not allowing a sex change on a kid, while the other parent believes the opposite.

The core belief of libertarianism is the Non Aggression Principle, but even that simple statement is met with utter disgust from some people.

When we can't even agree on what freedom is, it's impossible for any ideology to flourish, the best we can do is what we have done, human achievement in the last 200 years (the last 50 years of stagnation not withstanding, but we have made the world rich which counts for something) is incredible, but it will not go on indefinitely if we can't get along.

There is some data on the fact that humans split down the liberal/conservative line pretty much 50/50, no matter education or anything else. The lines are blurred today as nobody really knows what those terms mean, as I've always been liberal minded but lately identify with most conservative ideals, even though I am an atheist.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

By doing a bit of reading. Basically, until the destruction of the Temple and the change from a priest-led faith to that of the rabbis, only the patrilineal descent was seen as valid, in particular for the priestly and royal families. Following the persecutions and the beginning of the Diaspora, Jewishness was passed down thru the matrilineal line. Today there is division between Orthodox/Conservative and Reformed Jewish theology on this matter of deciding who is a Jew from birth.

Perhaps you're right, perhaps the text is a pack of lies, a fabrication, your choice though.

 

[ataraxia]

Like any other ideology that is firm, it will not tolerate any dissent. I get it, once you get rid of all the undesirables, it seems doable, but even then I doubt it as human nature will not allow it. I can see it working if humans are totally genetically engineered into an ideology, but who wants that, it would be no different from a society of AI's or robots with no free will or anything resembling a "soul", or consciousness, if you prefer.

As far as tyranny or totalitarianism, even the most libertarian society would be called tyrannical and totalitarian by those who want more social or economic control of the economy, as is evident by how liberals view tax and social program cuts, especially if done by executive order (amazingly, they don't mind spending via the same method). Liberals see an authority figure cutting the size of gov't as authoritarian and tyrannical. I've heard Democrats and Republicans recently calling Trump a tyrant for wanting to bring troops home. I've seen one parent call the other insensitive and a tyrant for not allowing a sex change on a kid, while the other parent believes the opposite.

The core belief of libertarianism is the Non Aggression Principle, but even that simple statement is met with utter disgust from some people.

When we can't even agree on what freedom is, it's impossible for any ideology to flourish, the best we can do is what we have done, human achievement in the last 200 years (the last 50 years of stagnation not withstanding, but we have made the world rich which counts for something) is incredible, but it will not go on indefinitely if we can't get along.

There is some data on the fact that humans split down the liberal/conservative line pretty much 50/50, no matter education or anything else. The lines are blurred today as nobody really knows what those terms mean, as I've always been liberal minded but lately identify with most conservative ideals, even though I am an atheist.

The only place that’s completely free is the jungle: where the string survive and thrive, and those who may find themselves in positions of weakness and vulnerability get eaten for lunch. It was not a very desirable place for most humans. That’s why they created such barber systems of civilization, law, order, and justice. but these are very artificial, man-made construct. Cannot exist when everyone and everything is left completely free. Things don’t work out for the best. Set actually becomes a very ugly situation.

So what is freedom? It is an ideal. But like any idea, it must be taken into consideration with other ideals, such as Justice, or security. It’s a little like saying that hard work is an ideal. But if left as an ideal and not balanced by any other ideals or considerations, it becomes workaholism. Accusing someone who thinks hard work should be balanced by other ideals such as occasional rest , relaxation, hobbies, or family time of wanting sloth or making the first step towards becoming a lazy bum would be silly. That kind of thinking leads to fanaticism and very poor outcomes.

So how much security and how much freedom? That is a difficult question societies have to decide on their own. Not everyone is going to agree or be happy with exactly where that line gets drawn. But it has to be drawn somewhere. Civilized humans today cannot go back to living with the freedom of the jungle.

 

[Trypt]

The only place that’s completely free is the jungle: where the string survive and thrive, and those who may find themselves in positions of weakness and vulnerability get eaten for lunch. It was not a very desirable place for most humans. That’s why they created such barber systems of civilization, law, order, and justice. but these are very artificial, man-made construct. Cannot exist when everyone and everything is left completely free. Things don’t work out for the best. Set actually becomes a very ugly situation.

So what is freedom? It is an ideal. But like any idea, it must be taken into consideration with other ideals, such as Justice, or security. It’s a little like saying that hard work is an ideal. But if left as an ideal and not balanced by any other ideals or considerations, it becomes workaholism. Accusing someone who thinks hard work should be balanced by other ideals such as occasional rest , relaxation, hobbies, or family time of wanting sloth or making the first step towards becoming a lazy bum would be silly. That kind of thinking leads to fanaticism and very poor outcomes.

So how much security and how much freedom? That is a difficult question societies have to decide on their own. Not everyone is going to agree or be happy with exactly where that line gets drawn. But it has to be drawn somewhere. Civilized humans today cannot go back to living with the freedom of the jungle.

Every single pro-freedom movement in America is based on the NAP, even if there are fringe survival of the fittest Darwinists out there who confuse what freedom actually is.

You sound more like a classical liberal to me, I don't see how any liberal these days can support the Democrat party, even if the Repubs leave a lot to be desired.

 

[ataraxia]

Every single pro-freedom movement in America is based on the NAP, even if there are fringe survival of the fittest Darwinists out there who confuse what freedom actually is.

You sound more like a classical liberal to me, I don't see how any liberal these days can support the Democrat party, even if the Repubs leave a lot to be desired.

If everyone is left free, what do you do with someone who chooses not to follow the NAP? Vigilante justice?

No I am a liberal and believe in Democracy in the sense that someone like John Dewey saw American Democracy. I see modern appeals to “freedom” by contemporary libertarians and classic liberals as only attempts to preserve cultural hegemony and power of a few in positions of power and privilege, and gut any formal protection of those who may find themselves in positions of weakness and vulnerability in society. It is a short sighted strategy, as in the jungle the hunters can frequently find themselves becoming the hunted in very short order.

Maybe we can agree that at some point freedom becomes toxic, and just the rule of the strong over the weak. Do you think there are any exact lines where that happens?

 

[Trypt]

If everyone is left free, what do you do with someone who chooses not to follow the NAP? Vigilante justice?

No I am a liberal and believe in Democracy in the sense that someone like John Dewey saw American Democracy. I see modern appeals to “freedom” by contemporary libertarians and classic liberals as only attempts to preserve cultural hegemony and power of a few in positions of power and privilege, and gut any formal protection of those who may find themselves in positions of weakness and vulnerability in society. It is a short sighted strategy, as in the jungle the hunters can frequently find themselves becoming the hunted in very short order.

Maybe we can agree that at some point freedom becomes toxic, and just the rule of the strong over the weak. Do you think there are any exact lines where that happens?

It happens when there is no strong morality in society, and it happens when there is no strong constitution to protect those freedoms. It's freedom from, not freedom to, mostly. In its basic form, libertarianism is all about letting people do their thing as long as it does not affect others life or liberty, but the line where your freedom starts and where mine begins is up to constitutional challenges as it's not simple (can I fish my side of the lake so much that the lake no longer supports fish at which point you have no fish on your side, can I dam a part of the river for my fields but then make it impossible for my neighbour down the hill to do the same, etc.).

 

[Trypt]

How can a society based on humanist principles become authoritarian? Has religion ever stopped societies from becoming authoritarian?

RationalWiki has a 'nice post' on Objectivism but it seems that the originator of "objectivism", Ayn Rand, didn't much care for Libertarians

Ayn Rand may have disliked Libertarians (big L), and most libertarians I know, myself included, have little in common with organized Libertarians especially the Libertarian party. So I'd have to agree with you, and her, however, Objectivism is definitely compatible with libertarianism, you could call it libertarianism with a rational ethics attached, something like humanism but without the collectivism.

 

[ataraxia]

It happens when there is no strong morality in society, and it happens when there is no strong constitution to protect those freedoms. It's freedom from, not freedom to, mostly.

In which society is morality so universally strong among every single one of its members that some clear and well-written system of laws and law-enforcement has not been necessary? You can have a society of millions of people. All it takes is one crazy person.

“ If men were angels, no government would be necessary.“
-James Madison

In its basic form, libertarianism is all about letting people do their thing as long as it does not affect others life or liberty, but the line where your freedom starts and where mine begins is up to constitutional challenges as it's not simple (can I fish my side of the lake so much that the lake no longer supports fish at which point you have no fish on your side, can I dam a part of the river for my fields but then make it impossible for my neighbour down the hill to do the same, etc.).

We can talk abstractions. But let’s try a concrete example. In the early industrial revolution, exploitation of child labor was very common. You had factory owners who had the privilege of only working only a few days a month, making more money than the GDP of entire nations. They hired children as young as 8 to work 80 hour weeks, with dangerous equipment and chemicals. They had no liability or accountability for their safety. These children were not going to school or getting an education. And yet they still weren’t making enough money to eat. Because this is what the free market demanded. There were a lot of calls for laws restricting the free market on such child exploitation. However, the libertarians of the time kept reassuring everyone that the free market would fix the problem if left to itself. There should be a trickle down eventually, they told everyone. But it was only getting worse when left free. That’s what the free market demanded. It was not until restrictions on the free market in the form of child labor laws that this practice stopped.

So was this tyranny and government over-reach?

 

[watsup]

Ayn Rand may have disliked Libertarians (big L), and most libertarians I know, myself included, have little in common with organized Libertarians especially the Libertarian party. So I'd have to agree with you, and her, however, Objectivism is definitely compatible with libertarianism, you could call it libertarianism with a rational ethics attached, something like humanism but without the collectivism.

I have long thought that the only place that a libertarian can be truly happy is on a deserted island where he or she lives alone with no one else telling him or her what to do. Outside of that, libertarianism is just more of a hobby than a realistic way to actually govern a society.