Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

[Thinking]

Getting closer all the time. Muscle has already been regrown.

www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/health/research/hu...

Now, how's your voodoo doing?

Wrathbone wrote:

<quoted text>
Can a limb regrow with modern medication?

[NightSerf]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
First of all, this is NOT the position of the vast majority of atheists.
Second, it was NOT a quote of Carl Sagan. it is a quote from Richard Lewontin who was reviewing a book of Sagan's.
Third, if you can find a way to test the 'non-material', I'm sure there are many scientists who would be willing to theorize, test, and figure out how it works. The rule of science isn't some fuzzy materialism, but the simple idea that ideas must be testable and that general principles must stand up to tests designed to show them wrong.
Finally, Dr. Lewontin is not a spokesman for ALL atheists or even all scientists. Lewontin was a marxist, with very particular views (which were often wrong).

Here's the full review for anyone who's interested: http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewont...

... and Wikipedia's article on Lewontin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin

When the article is read in full, it's clear that Lewontin was criticizing uncritical acceptance of scientific claims, not science itself. But skepticism can also be irrational, i.e., rejecting results even after all reasonable doubts have been satisfied with compelling evidence. The latter is one of the signature elements of zealots and fundamentalists. The doubts cause skeptics to look deeper give zealots excuses to reject without any real thought.

[RiversideRedneck]

Pat wrote:

None of the existing drafts of the 1863 Gettysburg Address speech, contain the words "under god." STOP LYING.

siiigh.....

"...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg_Add...

I'm not lying, you are. Get a grip.

[NightSerf]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
siiigh.....
"...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg_Add...
I'm not lying, you are. Get a grip.

Neither of you are lying, you are simply choosing to believe different sources. Personally, I think Lincoln did use the phrase "under God" when he delivered the address because, as the Wiki article noted, three different reporters telegraphed the text of the speech on the same day from their stenographic notes. But Lincoln may have improvised the phrase on the spot or have been mulling it over in his mind without having written it down. But adding the phrase to the pledge was not necessarily inspired by the speech--does anyone know for sure?

[Hedonist]

digitaldan wrote:

The Atheist's Manifesto
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdidy of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravangant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstatiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It's not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that Materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Carl Sagan

You are quoting Richard Lewontin, not Carl Sagan.

[mtimber]

Tide with Beach wrote:

<quoted text>
That's not a specific enough question to answer.
<quoted text>
What do you mean?
<quoted text>
I wouldn't call society the arbiter of morality. It's more like a moderator. Morality is first subject to the mind that is making moral distinctions, and then subject to any people or systems (real or imaginary) that they have volunteered accountability to.
I'm not going to answer vague questions or do your work for you.

I am not asking you to do anything for me.

I am asking you to justify your own worldview and explain how you account for morality.

You said something interesting, you said morality is first subject to the mind that is making moral distinctions.

So the ultimate standard for morality is the individuals decision?

You seem to be bouncing between the idea that it is the individual or the society that defines morality.

Which is it?

[Hedonist]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
And? We are one nation under God.

Not when I was born.

[Hedonist]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
But there is a reason for this.
The bible explains it.
They want to deny God.
And because only God accounts for absolutes, they are reduced to the absurd conclusion that they have to deny absolutes, even whilst they carry on using those absolutes, which they are denying.
So to be "right" in their rejection of God, they have to abandon logic, morality, uniformity and a sense of person.
And then they tell everyone else they are lacking in intelligence if they do not do the same...

You mean "absolutes" like killing witches?

[mtimber]

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean "absolutes" like killing witches?

I am sorry, as an atheist, do you have a basis for arguing that there is something wrong with killing witches?

After all, doesn't survival of the fittest demand that the strongest and most ruthless survive?

I am not sure, why, if you were to really live as an atheist (or secular humanist as you referred to yourself before, I believe), you would object to that?

I have asked you that numerous times and you have never been able to give an answer to it.

Now, if you were a christian and had a basis for appealing to an absolute moral standard, then your question would make sense.

But as you are an atheist, then, your question is nonsensical.

[Hedonist]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
So what if society says rape is okay?
Plenty of warlike societies have practiced rape in history.
How do you deal with that?
If society is the arbitrater of morality?

It's prevalent in the OT, so it must be part of that "absolute morality" you keep telling us about.

The thing is, modern societies have grown out of that. Just like we've grown out of slavery and female subservience and countless other religious "absolute moralities".

Thank you, but I think society is much better without your 2,000 year old religious ideas about morality.

[mtimber]

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>
It's prevalent in the OT, so it must be part of that "absolute morality" you keep telling us about.
The thing is, modern societies have grown out of that. Just like we've grown out of slavery and female subservience and countless other religious "absolute moralities".
Thank you, but I think society is much better without your 2,000 year old religious ideas about morality.

Really?

Hitler was quite modern.
The USSR was quite modern.
China is quite modern.

Yet their morality (from a Christian perspective), is questionable.

But even after several days, you still cannot account how you keep appealing to absolute moral standards, whilst denying they exist?

You keep making authority claims about morality, but what is your ultimate standard of morality upon which you keep measuring moral issues with?

You certainly do not get it from atheism, which you want to present as a rational viewpoint to adopt...

[mtimber]

Hedonist wrote:

Thank you, but I think society is much better without your 2,000 year old religious ideas about morality.

Upon what absolute moral basis do you appeal to "better" moral values?

[Clementia]

Tide with Beach wrote:

<quoted text>
That's not a specific enough question to answer.
<quoted text>
What do you mean?
<quoted text>
I wouldn't call society the arbiter of morality. It's more like a moderator. Morality is first subject to the mind that is making moral distinctions, and then subject to any people or systems (real or imaginary) that they have volunteered accountability to.
I'm not going to answer vague questions or do your work for you.

He means that in some religions/cultures rape was allowed and IS allowed. When Muslims invaded Indian, The Muslim king (babur), allowed men to rape the women in Indian, they were not punished, they were given awards. So many women were raped, but even at that time there were some Muslims who said it's wrong to rape women.

You think rape is wrong either coz of the society u live in or coz u believe in 'God'. If your government said it is OK to rape a woman. Lots of men in your country and all over the world, would openly start raping women and not fear the law. If a man still does not rape a woman then he is listening to the God within.

Society can change what is right and what is wrong, but God's law has been the same since Hinduism started to this day. It never changes!! Rape was wrong then and rape is wrong now and it'll always be wrong.

[Clementia]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>

After all, doesn't survival of the fittest demand that the strongest and most ruthless survive?

This survival of the fittest thing is the stupidest thing i ever learnt in school.

I hope i understood u right, about the rape thing!

[polymath257]

NightSerf wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's the full review for anyone who's interested: http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewont...
... and Wikipedia's article on Lewontin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin
When the article is read in full, it's clear that Lewontin was criticizing uncritical acceptance of scientific claims, not science itself. But skepticism can also be irrational, i.e., rejecting results even after all reasonable doubts have been satisfied with compelling evidence. The latter is one of the signature elements of zealots and fundamentalists. The doubts cause skeptics to look deeper give zealots excuses to reject without any real thought.

Thanks for that. I attempted to find the original review, but did not find it immediately. Once again, we see how the religious folk like to lie about what is said, the context of what is said, and the meaning of what is said, preferring their superstitious and bigoted stories to the truth.

[Tide with Beach]

mtimber wrote:

I am not asking you to do anything for me.

I know. I am going to ask you again to be more articulate, if you want me to respond to whatever you think you're asking.

mtimber wrote:

I am asking you to justify your own worldview and explain how you account for morality.

I don't seek to justify my worldview to others. Morality exists, it gives social creatures like us a survival advantage.

If that doesn't answer your question, be more specific.

mtimber wrote:

You said something interesting, you said morality is first subject to the mind that is making moral distinctions.
So the ultimate standard for morality is the individuals decision?

No, the ultimate standard, if there is one, would be based on consensus of all moral minded individuals.

mtimber wrote:

You seem to be bouncing between the idea that it is the individual or the society that defines morality.
Which is it?

It's both. Society is a collection of individuals. The individual influences the greater society, and the greater society influences the individual.

[mtimber]

Clementia wrote:

<quoted text>
This survival of the fittest thing is the stupidest thing i ever learnt in school.
I hope i understood u right, about the rape thing!

Indeed it is stupid.

It gives those who have the greatest power the moral ascendancy.

Hitler was a prime example of the evil of that type of doctrine.

[mtimber]

Clementia wrote:

<quoted text>
He means that in some religions/cultures rape was allowed and IS allowed. When Muslims invaded Indian, The Muslim king (babur), allowed men to rape the women in Indian, they were not punished, they were given awards. So many women were raped, but even at that time there were some Muslims who said it's wrong to rape women.
You think rape is wrong either coz of the society u live in or coz u believe in 'God'. If your government said it is OK to rape a woman. Lots of men in your country and all over the world, would openly start raping women and not fear the law. If a man still does not rape a woman then he is listening to the God within.
Society can change what is right and what is wrong, but God's law has been the same since Hinduism started to this day. It never changes!! Rape was wrong then and rape is wrong now and it'll always be wrong.

Exactly.

Remove that absolute standard and rape is not wrong, it is just someones personal choice.

[mtimber]

Tide with Beach wrote:

<quoted text>
I know. I am going to ask you again to be more articulate, if you want me to respond to whatever you think you're asking.
<quoted text>
I don't seek to justify my worldview to others. Morality exists, it gives social creatures like us a survival advantage.
If that doesn't answer your question, be more specific.
<quoted text>
No, the ultimate standard, if there is one, would be based on consensus of all moral minded individuals.
<quoted text>
It's both. Society is a collection of individuals. The individual influences the greater society, and the greater society influences the individual.

Some answers.:-)

But illogical answers unfortunately.

1. We all know that morality exists, what I am saying is that you cannot account for it in your worldview.

In mine it is easy, as it is a reflection of Gods character, but you have no basis for it as an atheist.

2. If an ultimate standard of morality is based on the consensus of all moral minded individuals, then who decides that they are moral minded?

Upon what standard do you judge them moral minded?

Again, you fail to see the vicious circular argument you wrap yourself up in...

3. So you are arguing it is consensual and individual? So who gets the final say, the consensus or individual?

They cannot both be equal...

That would be a contradiction, a logical contradiction.

So you see, you have no basis to explain the absolute morality you deny, but keep appealing to...

[Tide with Beach]

Clementia wrote:

He means that in some religions/cultures rape was allowed and IS allowed. When Muslims invaded Indian, The Muslim king (babur), allowed men to rape the women in Indian, they were not punished, they were given awards. So many women were raped, but even at that time there were some Muslims who said it's wrong to rape women.
You think rape is wrong either coz of the society u live in or coz u believe in 'God'.

Not necessarily.

Clementia wrote:

If your government said it is OK to rape a woman. Lots of men in your country and all over the world, would openly start raping women and not fear the law. If a man still does not rape a woman then he is listening to the God within.

Not necessarily.

Clementia wrote:

Society can change what is right and what is wrong, but God's law has been the same since Hinduism started to this day. It never changes!! Rape was wrong then and rape is wrong now and it'll always be wrong.

I agree with you that rape is wrong. We agree because we have empathy and don't want people to experience pain.

From this agreement comes laws and systems of morality and ethics.