So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Atreyu »

Spectrum wrote: I believe humanity has improved since the Stone Age in all critical areas from the perspective of neural connectivity in terms of knowledge, technology, intelligence, wisdom, morality, etc.
I see no improvement in intelligence, wisdom, or morality, only in knowledge and technology. Morality is a bit debatable, but overall I'd say basically we're no more "moral" than our ancestors. They just played a little more rough, that's all.
Spectrum wrote: Had humanity not progressed at all, humanity could have been wiped off by some epidemic disease like flu, smallpox, ebola, plague, etc. Bateria and viruses has a greater cycle of mutations to adapt to threats and we have to be one step ahead.
I don't consider "survival" to be progress. That's merely perpetuating the species, ideally so that it can make progress. But the perpetuating part in and of itself is not progress. As you said, microbes continue to mutate, and we always have new threats (AIDS, Zika, Ebola, etc) which require new antidotes. How is this treading water progress? It's just a constant ongoing battle, much like the war against computer hackers, in which each side continues to develop new strategies and tools which keep the status quo in place. No progress here.
Spectrum wrote: If we do away with theistic ideologies, then there is no potential at all for a nuclear war based on immutable commands from an illusory God.
True, but so what? There are scores of other reasons why we might have future nuclear war ---> competition for dwindling resources, desire for military and economic supremacy, or even just a terrible accident or misunderstanding. Is the current North Korean crisis have anything to do with a theistic ideology? How about the Cuban missile crisis in 1962? Was that about some theistic ideology?

Don't be fooled into idealism just because no one's pushed the button in the 70 yrs or so since Nagasaki. We've come close many times, are currently in a crisis now, and the truth is that only the fact of mutual annihilation and an aversion to killing millions of civilians have prevented a minor nuclear war from going down since then. You really have to be idealistic to think that we'll get rid of all nukes before some jerk off decides to push a button or two.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Spectrum »

Atreyu wrote:I see no improvement in intelligence, wisdom, or morality, only in knowledge and technology. Morality is a bit debatable, but overall I'd say basically we're no more "moral" than our ancestors. They just played a little more rough, that's all.
Note these definitions: Note this research on intelligence:
Is human intelligence declining, or are IQs on the rise? A new study conducted by psychologists at King’s College London suggests that we’re getting smarter, but just how much smarter depends on what part of the world you’re talking about.

To conduct the study, published in the March-April 2015 issue of the journal Intelligence, the researchers looked at 64 years of IQ score data for more than 200,000 people living in 48 countries. Overall, they found that global IQ scores have risen by an average of 20 points since 1950.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/0 ... 92758.html
I don't deny as the average person is more intelligent, they could possibly be more intelligent in committing evil. But that is NOT the point. The point is there is an increase in the average intelligence since our stone age ancestors.

As for morality there are lots of evidence to show the average 'level' of moral quotient has risen. Note my example of the UN resolution to ban slavery and slavery [in the strictest sense] has reduced all over the world.

As for wisdom, this capability increased with experience, morality and reasoning over time. I can't find any research on this but the point is humanity on average is much wiser not to detonate nuclear bombs arbitrary as they understand mutual assured destruction [MAD].

I believe it is not healthy to be pessimistic and thinking humanity is doomed despite the evidence.
Based on real evidence and trends I am optimistic humanity is on a progressing trend in all aspects of life.
Spectrum wrote: Had humanity not progressed at all, humanity could have been wiped off by some epidemic disease like flu, smallpox, ebola, plague, etc. Bateria and viruses has a greater cycle of mutations to adapt to threats and we have to be one step ahead.
I don't consider "survival" to be progress. That's merely perpetuating the species, ideally so that it can make progress. But the perpetuating part in and of itself is not progress. As you said, microbes continue to mutate, and we always have new threats (AIDS, Zika, Ebola, etc) which require new antidotes. How is this treading water progress? It's just a constant ongoing battle, much like the war against computer hackers, in which each side continues to develop new strategies and tools which keep the status quo in place. No progress here.
I did not equate "survival" to be 'progress' in this case.
Note the definition of progress above.
The point that humans are reducing the numbers of deaths due to small pox, plague, AIDs is obviously a sign of progress as defined.
Spectrum wrote: If we do away with theistic ideologies, then there is no potential at all for a nuclear war based on immutable commands from an illusory God.
True, but so what? There are scores of other reasons why we might have future nuclear war ---> competition for dwindling resources, desire for military and economic supremacy, or even just a terrible accident or misunderstanding. Is the current North Korean crisis have anything to do with a theistic ideology? How about the Cuban missile crisis in 1962? Was that about some theistic ideology?
I have stated this many times, I will repeat;

1. Humanity must address ALL evils in the world.
2. To be effective we need to break down the total evil into manageable categories, i.e.
- 2a - Secular based evils
- 2b - Religious related evils

I am not denying secular based evils exist and they must be addressed appropriately.
Since this is Religious Forum, I am presenting the solution for religious-based evils.
Don't be fooled into idealism just because no one's pushed the button in the 70 yrs or so since Nagasaki. We've come close many times, are currently in a crisis now, and the truth is that only the fact of mutual annihilation and an aversion to killing millions of civilians have prevented a minor nuclear war from going down since then. You really have to be idealistic to think that we'll get rid of all nukes before some jerk off decides to push a button or two.
I am being very practical. I don't deny the possibility but I am confident on the secular side, the secular and others are wiser from the Nagasaki/Hiroshima experience. What is going on with North Korea is merely sable-rattling and the possibility is very slim they will go all out into a full nuclear war.

I want to highlight again, while the secular are likely to play safe due to fears of Mutual Assured Destruction, the theists [especially Islam] will not hesitate to go all out for a nuclear war since either way they will go to Paradise as martyrs with greater rewards from their God.
When pushed into a corner, the Jews and Christians will ignore MAD since they will assign it as God's Will and they will go to heaven regardless.
Agree??
I don't see you countering this point.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Ranvier »

Spectrum

You can't "define" something, using something else that requires it's own definition:
Spectrum wrote: Progress in general mean improvement from a previous state.

Improve:
-make or become better.
-develop or increase in mental capacity by education or experience.
-achieve or produce something better than.
These are all relative terms. We're much better in killing each other, deforestation, air and water pollution, depletion of the ozone layer, carbon dioxide emissions, etc... none of these things are the evidence of humanity being "wiser" or "better". Where is the "wisdom" in having more secure network that will be penetrated by an ingenious hacker inventing a more efficient "virus". We do have more "knowledge" but that is not a measure of IQ!! If in fact we would accept the findings of such study to be correct, then we would have the direct evidence that Homo sapiens has evolved and must be acknowledged by renaming our species. In reality, as any test, IQ is a measure of where one "scores" within the population. This is not a direct correlation to the previous results but a narrowing of the range of distribution, which logically correlates with the number of people tested (increase in the population). Walking into a small sample size (club) with male/female ration of 3:1, is not indicative of the ratio within the population, which is much closer to 1:1.

You also continue with using some self-stitched ideas about humanity, morality, evil... these are all relative concepts based on the individual "subjective perception". I don't perceive your ideas to be "idealistic", on the contrary, I perceive them to be malicious and dangerous in nature. Similar to Hitler comparing the "supremacy" of one group (secular) to "animal like" inferior (theistic), as a disease state (zombie parasite) or cancer that must be "tweaked" on genetic level; alteration of the brain; or simply "eliminate" like "cancer" for the "greater good". It's terrifying how you think.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Belindi »

Ranvier wrote:Spectrum

You can't "define" something, using something else that requires it's own definition:
Spectrum wrote: Progress in general mean improvement from a previous state.

Improve:
-make or become better.
-develop or increase in mental capacity by education or experience.
-achieve or produce something better than.
These are all relative terms. We're much better in killing each other, deforestation, air and water pollution, depletion of the ozone layer, carbon dioxide emissions, etc... none of these things are the evidence of humanity being "wiser" or "better". Where is the "wisdom" in having more secure network that will be penetrated by an ingenious hacker inventing a more efficient "virus". We do have more "knowledge" but that is not a measure of IQ!! If in fact we would accept the findings of such study to be correct, then we would have the direct evidence that Homo sapiens has evolved and must be acknowledged by renaming our species. In reality, as any test, IQ is a measure of where one "scores" within the population. This is not a direct correlation to the previous results but a narrowing of the range of distribution, which logically correlates with the number of people tested (increase in the population). Walking into a small sample size (club) with male/female ration of 3:1, is not indicative of the ratio within the population, which is much closer to 1:1.

You also continue with using some self-stitched ideas about humanity, morality, evil... these are all relative concepts based on the individual "subjective perception". I don't perceive your ideas to be "idealistic", on the contrary, I perceive them to be malicious and dangerous in nature. Similar to Hitler comparing the "supremacy" of one group (secular) to "animal like" inferior (theistic), as a disease state (zombie parasite) or cancer that must be "tweaked" on genetic level; alteration of the brain; or simply "eliminate" like "cancer" for the "greater good". It's terrifying how you think.

-- Updated October 5th, 2017, 2:31 am to add the following --

Cultural relativism is a good idea. But some cultures are better than other cultures, aren't they? The 1939-45 war was a just war (generally speaking)on the part of the Allies.

-- Updated October 5th, 2017, 2:33 am to add the following --

I don't like the idea of non-specific progress like what Spectrum seems to hold. Still less do I like the idea that humanity is progressing towards a good end to his history.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Spectrum »

Ranvier wrote:I don't perceive your ideas to be "idealistic", on the contrary, I perceive them to be malicious and dangerous in nature. Similar to Hitler comparing the "supremacy" of one group (secular) to "animal like" inferior (theistic), as a disease state (zombie parasite) or cancer that must be "tweaked" on genetic level; alteration of the brain; or simply "eliminate" like "cancer" for the "greater good". It's terrifying how you think.
Again you are using rhetoric.
I discussed 'progress' and 'improvement' and you link this to "supremacy" then to 'Hitler.' Somehow you must deviate to the worst when I have not insist on doing anything evil.

Btw, I have mentioned many times, the leverage of my proposals are based on an adoption of the one of the Boddhisattva' vow [Buddhism] to rely on compassion and empathy to deal and contribute in seeking solutions to all sufferings.

The practice of mindfulness [vispasana in Buddhism] actually involve rewiring the brain [albeit black-box approach] for the self-development of the individual and therefrom the collective. Thus the way forward is to look into greater details into the brain, via the Connectome Project. Whatever tweaking of the brain that you sensed, it will be done without any side effects and will be voluntary.

-- Updated Thu Oct 05, 2017 2:59 am to add the following --
Belindi wrote:I don't like the idea of non-specific progress like what Spectrum seems to hold. Still less do I like the idea that humanity is progressing towards a good end to his history.
Frankly I cannot understand how you could 'smell' evil within the concept of 'continuous improvement' and in this case it is all for good over evil.
wiki wrote:A continual improvement process, also often called a continuous improvement process (abbreviated as CIP or CI), is an ongoing effort to improve products, services, or processes. These efforts can seek "incremental" improvement over time or "breakthrough" improvement all at once.

"continuous improvement as a gradual never-ending change which is: '... focused on increasing the effectiveness and/or efficiency of an organisation to fulfil its policy and objectives. It is not limited to quality initiatives. Improvement in business strategy, business results, customer, employee and supplier relationships can be subject to continual improvement. Put simply, it means ‘getting better all the time’.' "
As I had stated, getting better all the time can also refer to doing evil. But as I had stated I believe humans has a inherent moral potential to strive to ensure good prevail over evil.
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Belindi »

Spectrum wrote:
As I had stated, getting better all the time can also refer to doing evil. But as I had stated I believe humans has a inherent moral potential to strive to ensure good prevail over evil.

Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/
Isn't it true that trust in God does not banish the Devil of evil? Similarly the goodness of men(however you define goodness) does not banish the badness of men. Indeed there is ample evidence for what I am saying. If all politicians were pessimists we would be safer maybe even nicer.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Spectrum »

Belindi wrote:Spectrum wrote:
As I had stated, getting better all the time can also refer to doing evil. But as I had stated I believe humans has a inherent moral potential to strive to ensure good prevail over evil.

Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/
Isn't it true that trust in God does not banish the Devil of evil?
Not involving any God, I have sounding VERY loudly for a long time, 'ALL humans has an inherent potential to be Evil'.
Similarly the goodness of men(however you define goodness) does not banish the badness of men. Indeed there is ample evidence for what I am saying. If all politicians were pessimists we would be safer maybe even nicer.
Actually to date, there is glaring evidence 'good' has the edge over 'evil' as far as humans are concern, otherwise the human species would have been extinct or reduced to isolated groups.

As I had stated humans has the inherent moral propensity [link above] to strive to ensure 'good' prevail.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Atreyu »

Spectrum wrote: I don't deny as the average person is more intelligent, they could possibly be more intelligent in committing evil. But that is NOT the point. The point is there is an increase in the average intelligence since our stone age ancestors.
This is quite wrong, because IQ doesn't really measure "raw" intelligence. If you took some men from the Stone Age, and raised them in our modern educational system, I'd bet you'd find their average IQs to be roughly equal to any modern man. It's easy to say we're more intelligent than them because they didn't have all the education and knowledge we have today. But they could argue the same, based on their own parameters. They knew how to hunt, track game, make medicines out of plants, detect edible and poisonous plants, navigate using the stars, etc, etc. Can modern man do that?

I can easily imagine a bunch of Stone Age men travelling to our future from the past in a time machine, and no doubt they would mock our ignorance. "More intelligence than us?", they would say, "when you guys would survive in the wild for a few weeks at best?" Or imagine us going back to their time. We would be helpless and weak in their world, and quite ignorant. It wouldn't take too long for us to appreciate their intelligence, and, in fact, our very survival would depend on it.
Spectrum wrote: As for morality there are lots of evidence to show the average 'level' of moral quotient has risen. Note my example of the UN resolution to ban slavery and slavery [in the strictest sense] has reduced all over the world.
Since morality changes from time to time, and from geographic region to region, this is completely subjective, and basically a load of bull. If you judge men by their actions, we are hardly as "moral". Did they fight wars all the time, killing millions for resources or over who's God was the best? Did they have homeless living in the streets while others' lived in luxury? Was rape a common thing? How about pedophilia? To say we are more moral is rationalization at its best (or worse).
Spectrum wrote: As for wisdom, this capability increased with experience, morality and reasoning over time. I can't find any research on this but the point is humanity on average is much wiser not to detonate nuclear bombs arbitrary as they understand mutual assured destruction [MAD].
They didn't fight wars at all. Nuclear war just hasn't happened yet. Is it wise to even have nukes? Look at all the wars going on right now. Look at Syria. We're wise? Surely you jest on this.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Belindi »

Spectrum wrote:
Actually to date, there is glaring evidence 'good' has the edge over 'evil' as far as humans are concern, otherwise the human species would have been extinct or reduced to isolated groups.

As I had stated humans has the inherent moral propensity [link above] to strive to ensure 'good' prevail.
You don't overestimate good, but you underestimate evil. Both moral evil and natural evil will win eventually when humanity implodes. Good people have two aims. One aim is to forestall the inevitable, and the other aim is to forge some virtue from our hellish record of evil doing.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Spectrum »

Atreyu wrote:
Spectrum wrote: I don't deny as the average person is more intelligent, they could possibly be more intelligent in committing evil. But that is NOT the point. The point is there is an increase in the average intelligence since our stone age ancestors.
This is quite wrong, because IQ doesn't really measure "raw" intelligence. If you took some men from the Stone Age, and raised them in our modern educational system, I'd bet you'd find their average IQs to be roughly equal to any modern man. It's easy to say we're more intelligent than them because they didn't have all the education and knowledge we have today. But they could argue the same, based on their own parameters. They knew how to hunt, track game, make medicines out of plants, detect edible and poisonous plants, navigate using the stars, etc, etc. Can modern man do that?

I can easily imagine a bunch of Stone Age men travelling to our future from the past in a time machine, and no doubt they would mock our ignorance. "More intelligence than us?", they would say, "when you guys would survive in the wild for a few weeks at best?" Or imagine us going back to their time. We would be helpless and weak in their world, and quite ignorant. It wouldn't take too long for us to appreciate their intelligence, and, in fact, our very survival would depend on it.
Your response is odd as you do not seem to have notice this, if yes, you did not counter this research.
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 83#p296183
- post #407
Is human intelligence declining, or are IQs on the rise? A new study conducted by psychologists at King’s College London suggests that we’re getting smarter, but just how much smarter depends on what part of the world you’re talking about.

To conduct the study, published in the March-April 2015 issue of the journal Intelligence, the researchers looked at 64 years of IQ score data for more than 200,000 people living in 48 countries. Overall, they found that global IQ scores have risen by an average of 20 points since 1950.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/0 ... 92758.html
It's easy to say we're more intelligent than them because they didn't have all the education and knowledge we have today.
That is the point, my claim that present human are more intelligent on average than our ancestors take into account the knowledge, time and experience we have accumulated. That is a fact and lots of research had been done support my point.
Spectrum wrote: As for morality there are lots of evidence to show the average 'level' of moral quotient has risen. Note my example of the UN resolution to ban slavery and slavery [in the strictest sense] has reduced all over the world.
Since morality changes from time to time, and from geographic region to region, this is completely subjective, and basically a load of bull. If you judge men by their actions, we are hardly as "moral". Did they fight wars all the time, killing millions for resources or over who's God was the best? Did they have homeless living in the streets while others' lived in luxury? Was rape a common thing? How about pedophilia? To say we are more moral is rationalization at its best (or worse).
Note I stated, the average level of moral quotient.
To arrive at the average, we need to take into account all actions of humans during the various periods.
In addition, we have to give weights to each category of actions, then we calculate the weighted average.
I believe the moral issues [very common] of slavery, incest, human sacrifice, cannibalism, infanticide and many other serious evils committed by humans of the past in relation to the population then is likely to give them a much lower moral average.
Another critical point it long ago, there are no universal and global preventive and control mechanisms to minimize the critical evils.

Your views are ridiculous. If the ancients precedents are morally better, then modern humans should all abandon modernity and live in the jungles.
Spectrum wrote: As for wisdom, this capability increased with experience, morality and reasoning over time. I can't find any research on this but the point is humanity on average is much wiser not to detonate nuclear bombs arbitrary as they understand mutual assured destruction [MAD].
They didn't fight wars at all. Nuclear war just hasn't happened yet. Is it wise to even have nukes? Look at all the wars going on right now. Look at Syria. We're wise? Surely you jest on this.
Humans must advance to deal with all sort of threats to the extent that we may have to populate other planets. Nuclear and other more powerful energies has to be discovered. As I had stated when human advance in general, correspondingly the potential for evil also advance. Example, we need more powerful computer and IT but this feed the hackers as well.
What is inherent in humans is we have an inherent proclivity to ensure the good will prevail over evil rather than merely be indifferent to threats.
As I had stated our mindfulness of MAD had made us wiser than in 1945 when the USA bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Syria?? but note the secular collective is not indifferent to the problem and various groups are making attempts to resolve the issue despite the difficulties which is made worse by theism. If not for theism [Suuni versus Shia] we could have resolve the Syria issue sooner.

Theism is the bottleneck and pain-in-the neck here.

-- Updated Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:01 am to add the following --
[b]Belindi[/b] wrote:Spectrum wrote:
Actually to date, there is glaring evidence 'good' has the edge over 'evil' as far as humans are concern, otherwise the human species would have been extinct or reduced to isolated groups.

As I had stated humans has the inherent moral propensity [link above] to strive to ensure 'good' prevail.
You don't overestimate good, but you underestimate evil. Both moral evil and natural evil will win eventually when humanity implodes. Good people have two aims. One aim is to forestall the inevitable, and the other aim is to forge some virtue from our hellish record of evil doing.
Natural evil?? There is no such thing. Natural catastrophes [if this is what you are referring to] are merely natural events.

As evident the collective humans are optimistic, else humanity would not have 'progressed' to the current state to the extreme of sending probes to other planets.

Humanity is inherently imbued with the confidence and optimism it can deal and over come whatever evils committed by individual or specific groups of people. Otherwise the majority will be depressed and indifference to preventive and proactive actions.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Atreyu »

Spectrum, if you were a penguin, you would be of the type that would assert we've made wonderful progress by learning to use our wings to achieve a better balance when walking.

Apparently you have forgotten that we used to use our wings to fly.....
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Belindi »

Spectrum wrote:
Natural evil?? There is no such thing. Natural catastrophes [if this is what you are referring to] are merely natural events.

"Merely" you say "merely" !

Tell "merely" to farmers in Puerto Rico.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Spectrum »

Atreyu wrote:Spectrum, if you were a penguin, you would be of the type that would assert we've made wonderful progress by learning to use our wings to achieve a better balance when walking.

Apparently you have forgotten that we used to use our wings to fly.....
[/quote]
"IF" yes a big 'IF.'
Your use of a penguin is a straw man.
Why not refer to examples of certain groups of Chimpanzees using tools to catch termites, etc. ? Note Japanese macaques who washed sand off the sweet potatoes in sea water which enhance taste as well. These acts are signs of progress. But they are not relevant.

To be relevant we have to confine our comparison of net-progress to humans of the past and the present, e.g. humans 10,000, 5,000, 2,000 years ago with those of the present in 2017.

-- Updated Mon Oct 09, 2017 12:49 am to add the following --
Belindi wrote:Spectrum wrote:
Natural evil?? There is no such thing. Natural catastrophes [if this is what you are referring to] are merely natural events.
"Merely" you say "merely" !

Tell "merely" to farmers in Puerto Rico.
Yes, merely 'natural' [or acts of God for theists] and nothing more.

I believe most of those in Puerto Rico are Roman Catholics. They are likely to believe the hurricanes are God's Will not the work of the devil or are acts of evil.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Burning ghost »

Some of the things being proposed on this page are quite ridiculous.

Of course humanity has progressed. Less children die of starvation (percentage wise), and more people (percentage wise0 are literate and reasonably well educated, or at least able to gain some form of reasonable education.

The argument about people travelling from the stone age calling us unintelligent because we cannot live in the wild is not only silly, but completely untrue. IQ is a measure of an ability to succeed across various different environments and to deal with various sets of problems with success. Someone of lower IQ will more likely die in a forest with no knowledge of the environment than someone of a higher IQ. That is what IQ is meant to measure, it has nothing to do with knowledge possessed, but is rather about the ability to gain knowledge across multiple domains under a certain amount of duress (that is why the tests are timed.)

Still puzzled as to what any of this has to do with being an atheist? Guess this thread has, like so many others, sprouted into a chaotic diatribe of complete nonsense. The thing is am I causing offense by saying this or is someone going to do something about it?

I imagine too much bickering between mods so nothing actually gets done? haha!

Anyway, maybe I better start my own thread ...
AKA badgerjelly
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Belindi »

But, Burning Ghost, the nature of evil and its application to human nature is intrinsic to the debate about the value of God beliefs.

-- Updated October 9th, 2017, 4:20 am to add the following --
Hereandnow wrote:Atheists enjoy their, what shall i call it, pride in being able to look unflinchingly at the hard truths of the world. But really, atheism is at least just as indefensible as theism. I mean, if you're thinking that theism is just a joke about an old man ina cloud, then you don't understand theism, or any defensible form of it. If your atheism is just the justified denial of a medieval anthropomorphism, then so what. Try arguing a against a more respectable thesis: that of ethical objectivism. Anti-objectivists here deny that ethical values need for their theoretical underpinning something absolute, like god or Plato's FOG (Form of the Good). Objectivists, like myself, think they do need this. In order to make sense of this world there must be something that, and I will use a fragile word, redeems it. We do not live in a stand-alone world, meaning that the ideas that constitute all that we can bring to bear on the problem of being here qua being here, just plain being here and all that it possesses, are wholly incommensurate with what they purport to explain. In other words, atheism explains nothing. It simply walks away on a cloud of value nihilism, you know, like Jesus walking on water (both absurd).

If you can't argue well an anti-objectivist view, then you are a lot closer to theism then you think, for you have to admit that the world needs redemption.
Above is the original post.

I agree with Hereandnow that the world needs redemption. I have called myself an atheist because there is seldom the proper social time to explain that the God that I support is an ongoing work of man, not a fait accompli.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021