? {Moved to AvT}
Offline A month back in http://guestbooks.pathfinder.gr/read/kenthovind are 2 quotes from RRS forums. The first's more or less
"Hambydammit", "BobSpence1", and "Kellym" do not exist. Those are just labels that lazy people apply, for their own convenience, to bunches of subatomic particles that are simply going about their business. Just as they have for the last 12 billion years. Those bunch's "ideas" (perhaps one of them is that they're Free Thinkers) are nothing but configurations of the Universe's matter/energy that occur as those particles follow the Universe's purposeless, impersonal laws. So are those of the bunch labeled "Kent Hovind". And who's to be arbiter between these two bunches, other than some other bunch of purposeless particles?
The second's
Kent Hovind thinks it's a good thing to massacre Muslim insurgents, then bury them in mass graves filled with pig guts. On the other hand, Materialists of my acquaintance maintain that we must not do this.
However, Materialists cannot avoid conceding that in a matter/energy-only (M/E-only) Universe, Hovind's opinion and their own must have exactly the same origin: in the workings of ultimately purposeless physical laws within ensembles of M/E. Here, those laws have produced ethical judgments that are diametrically opposed. And in a M/E-only Universe, it's futile to ask which is "right". That answer would have to come from some other ensemble of matter/energy, for whose ethical judgments the Materialists could claim no validity that Hovind could not claim for his own, and with equal justification.
the quotes are from
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/kill_em_with_kindness/10614#comment-116022
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/13976?page=5#comment-171369
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/13976?page=7#comment-173148
The post in http://guestbooks.pathfinder.gr/read/kenthovind says no one responded. Also, the link http://www.rationalresponders.com/fallacies_commonly_employed_against_materialism_refuted mentioned in http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/13976?page=5#comment-171369 is dead.
- Login to post comments
The Subject Header made me think I had a quest to turn in, nothing for me here though.
Your argument appears to be that people need god to be moral. Since morality predates god, however, that argument quickly falls apart.
"Good" and "Bad' only have meaning to conscious entities. These are complex material structures with complex processes of interacting sub-structures we call neurones which are intimately connected with 'consciousness'. Still 'only' constituted of matter and energy at the base level, but in incredibly complex structures. So the way in which matter is arranged in complex structures is what gives rise to emergent properties of these assemblages of matter.
As evolved organisms, we have deveoped drives which make us avoid things which will damage or even kill us - after all critters which didn't do this would not survive too well. We also have evolved positive urges towards things which will aid our survival, such as cooperation in social groups.
It seems pretty obvious that it makes evolutionary sense to categorize various behaviour as "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong, based on these basic drives. Of course, our conscious processes of thought have allowed an extra level of consideration of what we mean or understand by these terms, and so we get ever more elaborate systems to attempt to govern our society in what we have come to call "moral" terms, and inevitably, because social evolution proceeds much faster than genetic evolution, and may indeed lead to the survival of the most appealling idea rather than the one that may be in the best long-term interest of the species or group.
So we end up with all these individual and cultural disagreements about what is "right" and "wrong".
No need at any point to gratuitously introduce some outside entity to dictate a set of moral guidelines, that destroys a perfectly rational explanation of how these ideas arose.
In summary, I think it makes most sense to define good and bad in terms of benefit and harm as individuals and groups perceive it As such there are going to be disagreements, but the "right" thing is what a consensus of society regards as beneficial or at least less harmful to the smooth running and general happiness of the people who make up a community. An individual might disagree, but they still have to refer to some notion of a wider society, not just their own personal situation, at least IMHO.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Um, logic?
Is it futile to ask which would benefit mankind?
You're assuming that there must be an absolute answer.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Every time I hear the 'just matter' argument, a small part of my subatomic collective dies.
What you've missed is that concepts like 'purpose', 'personalization', 'ideas', etc are all human abstractions. They're a result of us flexing the grey matter in our heads for our own betterment.
You should give it a try, sometime.
...So what's your point?
Premise: All human beings use the same organ to generate their thoughts.
Conclusion: ???
You're missing an essential part of your argument. If the conclusion you're begging for is along the lines of, 'Since we all use a brain to think with, all of our thoughts must be equal,' you're headed deep into non-sequitor territory.
You're correct. It is stupid to paint the universe black and white and, with no argument, simply arbitrarily claim one thing to be right and another to be wrong. Doing this defeats the whole purpose of inquiry and skepticism; defining anything as absolutely "right" is dogmatic and rather hazardous.
*facepalm*
...And how, pray tell, would this 'other' being somehow just 'know' what is right and what is wrong? Why would anyone simply trust the arbitrary word of such an entity, other than out of fear (as in, say, the Christian Biblical literature)?
It chills me to hear this kind of doublethink on such a regular basis. You're more or less describing a very malicious ethereal dictatorship, and you appear totally unable to recognize your own arguments as such. God is more powerful than us, so what he says is law, and any argument or reason is a moot point.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
So it looks like there's nothing absolutely wrong with hovind wanting to massacre muslims. just that you dont like it and its bad for the human race.
SO WHAT?
who made YOU guys the judge?
Check this out. You're about to get pwned by a non-existent entity...
Ok. This is very, very simple. In a vacuum, there's absolutely nothing wrong with hovind wanting to massacre muslims. Hovind and muslims do not exist in a vacuum, though. They exist in a real system composed of humans, all of whom share essentially the same genetic material. In order for a species to survive, it has to not only master its environment, but itself. That is, a species that kills itself off does not survive. Duh. This doesn't take consciousness. It only takes math. Supposing that there have been species that have had a propensity for killing themselves out, they're all dead now. Only species that behave in ways that continue the species continue. It's so obvious that it hardly needs to be pointed out.
Long before we became sentient, we developed the trait of protecting our own tribe, or herd, or whatever you want to call it. We're social animals, and like all social animals, we are protective of our own. It's good math, and that's why it evolved in the first place. As we became sentient, we retained pretty much all of our instincts. When we encounter danger, we experience fight or flight responses. When we see attractive members of our preferred sex, we experience blood flow to the genitals and dilation of the pupils. When someone attacks our mother, we fight back.
When people became "civilized" -- that is, when we formed societies above the level of family groups, things got more complicated. Some of our instincts became detrimental to our survival. Even though Grak isn't a member of my family, he has shiny stones that he will trade to me for shiny shells, and women in my tribe like shiny stones. If I try to kill Grak, both of our tribes will likely die because of that third tribe just over the way. This is how rudimentary laws and social customs developed.
So you see, Hovind doesn't exist in a world without values. He exists in a society of social animals that have evolved instincts and developed cultures by which they judge actions. In our post-industrial semi-egalitarian social structure, it is judged as bad to kill people based on their religion or ethnicity. There are good reasons for this.
If the human race suddenly lost its survival instinct, it wouldn't be wrong anymore. Hold your breath and wait for it, ok?
US guys are not the judge. We are judges. So are you. So are Muslims. All humans (except those with neurological disorders such as severe autism) are capable of moral judgements. All moral systems are based on our instincts, filtered through our environment, and tested against the approval of our peers.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Think of it this way.
"Hambydammit" "BobSpence1", and "Kellym" are just labels for a pile of subatomic particles. so's "kent hovinds daily dump in the pot at the jail". why's one more valuable than the other?
only logical unemotional materialistic arguments please. opinions of other piles ("peers, and "cultures) aren't logical arguments. guess a pile of particles can't be expected to know that. same for saying "Hambydammit" "BobSpence1", and "Kellym" have some value hovind's dump doesn't, just because they're "humans". you have to PROVE why that makes them more valuable. only materialistic, nonemotional proofs of that, please.
When Hamby spoke of what is right and wrong, he is simply referring to what would benefit our species and/or follows our inherent moral instincts. When I communicate with other human beings, I always "try" to be honest, kind, and respectful because I believe that this is right thing to do, and it makes me happy, not to follow any divine law. Your contention is that this is simply not good enough. For you, there has to be some absolute rules to rely on; you appear to be stuck on the notion that morality necessitates some infallible arbiter to hammer out all the final decisions. Why?
First of all, stop using the appeal to absurdity. It doesn't add anything to the discussion. Technically, everything is made of particles, but we are more than that, for unlike anything else in the known universe, we have the ability to be conscious of ourselves and our surroundings. We can reason, and, just because of that, we are absolutely awesome. (humanism ftw)
Now, for your main request, you're assuming a lot of things. When you state, "a pile of particles can't be expected to know that," you're still implying that morality is absolute; you're thinking that when atheists proclaim to know what is right or wrong, they are spreading some kind of universal, untouchable truth. Thus, what you're really requesting is something that we simply don't offer, because it doesn't exist. I don't profess to know the secrets to the universe; I just do what seems right to me, not to get into heaven, or to escape the fiery blackness of hell, but because, well, that's what seems right. Does that make sense?
Along the paths as my previous paragraphs, why does there need to be some final judge of what is valuable and what is not? A rational, peaceful, tolerant choice is more valuable because those are what satisfy our biology and benefit the human race. Sounds pretty materialistic to me.
edit: Who is "YOU" guys?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Those "piles of subatomic particles" are clearly distinguishable from other collections of particles, in physically describable ways.
At the lowest level, they are not just randomly distributed, they are clumped into persistent patterns we call atoms, which in turn seem to clump into larger groups we call molecules, and so on. These clumps of matter interact with each other in specific patterns, leading to complex proceses, which ulltimately cause these relatively persistent clumps of matter which we attach these labels to to display very different attributes and patterns of interactions with each other than other climps of matter, such as the ones we label "dog", or "chair" or "rock".
They have no value in and of themselves.
They DO display patterns of thought and reaction to what they perceive, which we call "emotions", "moods", "feelings", "urges", etc. These patterns of thought do exist, and are essential to the ongoing persistence of the group of all similar such entities. The survival of this group - AKA "human society" has no value in itself, but it happens to have persisted over many generations because it does have some basic characteristics which do tend to drive us to avoid life-threatening situations, and to cooperate and help each other, at least some of the time, since this is more conducive to survival than lack of such 'emotional' drives.
These emotions include assignment of labels of "good" to certain feelings, and hence to actions and behaviour which seems to be more conducive to those feelings, which were selected by evolution as those which best helped our species survive. 'Value' is indeed meaningless outside human thought and culture.
It would be irrational and illogical not to recognise that most of our behaviour is driven by these thought-patterns we call emotions. So we must use the concept in our explanation. They are 'patterns' of 'patterns' of processes which are sequences of interactions of physical objects, so don't try and dismiss this account as going beyond "materialism'. It certainly does go beyond crude, reductionist Materialism, of course. But it requires no assumptions about supernatural entities.
"Emotions" are not material entities in themselves, any more than the temperature of an object, or its weight, or its speed of rotation, are material entities - they are attributes of material objects. In the case of emotions, they are the effect of an extremely complex set of interactions between ultimately 'material' entities.
An avalanche, the flow of a river, the growth of a delta system at the mouth of a river over time, these are not material entities either, they are label we put on processes, in which actual material objects move around and interact.
So your are right that crude strict 'Materialism' is inadequate to explain many aspects of reality, we do need to add the concepts of structure, pattern, process, as descriptions of the form and behaviour of collections of simpler material objects.
Also, strict "PROOF" is not required for knowledge about the nature of reality, in fact nothing that is not purely deductive, ie based on logical reasoning from initial definitions, is strictly provable in any ultimate sense. Even logic cannot prove the axioms, or definitions, it can only show that some propositions are consistent or inconsistent with other propositions.
We only need to provide evidence and arguments which show that one way of interpreting the world around us is at least as useful, while being less complicated, requiring less unsupported assumption, than others. at least so far.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Looks like you can dish materialism out but can't take it.
Its so popular to be a schizophrenic atheist. You get to be a materialist who believes he’s just a bunch of purposeless subatomic particles, just like any old pile of shit, and you also get to tell yourself and everyone else that you and your opinions are a lot more important than any pile of shit.
And you get away with it forever here cause none of your schizophrenic peers calls you on it. read your posts and see it yourself. You just jumped right in assuming that the human race, its survival, and its opinions of itself are more important than a pile of shit. Because a human being is more complex and ordered than a pile of shit? Check it out, materialists, that’s an aesthetic judgment not a logical argument. And that judgment itself is just a pattern of purposeless particles. So was your reaction to that last sentence.
After that first assumption your posts were nothing but emotions and opinions. that’s right, more patterns of purposeless subatomic particles that just believe they’re more important than the particles in a pile of shit.
take another bite at the apple. Fill in the blank below with a chain of rigorous deductive logic from just materialistic principles.
RRS authors and their opinions are just a pattern of purposeless subatomic particles. A pile of shit is just a pattern of purposeless subatomic particles…_________________...Therefore RRS authors and their opinions are more important than a pile of shit.
once again, as i said on your other "thread," you are not talking about materialism at all. you're talking about nihilism. i don't know of anyone on this site espousing nihilism, and atheism does not lead necessarily to nihilism.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Since I obviously do NOT believe I am " just a bunch of purposeless subatomic particles", your post does not apply to me, or most of the others here. I do not subscribe to this simplistic world-view you label "Materialism", or what you seem to consider "Materialistic" principles.
"Purposeless" maybe, since that is a subjective term which only makes sense from the point of view of a particular individual conscious being, rather than the stuff that being is made of.
"Important" is also somewhat subjective, there is nothing illogical about my feeling that the particular bunch of atoms that make up my body and brain is more important to me than some other random collection of atoms. If my body did not exist, neither would I, so not believing in an independent 'soul' LOGICALLY makes my body and brain MORE important to me than it would if I 'really' existed in some independent thing.
You are the one committing the basic logical fallacy in assuming that the only alternative to the crude, straw-man version of "materilism" you seem to be referring to is, presumably, some form of supernatural belief, specifically one where "right" and "wrong" are judged by a set of rules made up by some super being. I happen to believe that "right" and "wrong" mean more than just conforming to a set of rules made upon by someone else, just because thaey are more powerful than me. That is not really morality, that's just obedience to the law to avoid punishment.
"Important" LOGICALLY only makes sense when you specify the context - important "to whom", or "for what purpose".
You, for example, have no importance whatever to myself or the RRS, except as an object of ridicule.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Anyone can judge. If enough people agree on the judgement, then you have the makings of a morality. I don't see what your problem is.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I had really hoped you wouldn't sink to this level.
A pile of shit doesn't have any opinions; I do. There are many differences here; ignoring them doesn't mean that they don't exist.
Our responses were aesthetic judgments and logical arguments. Who holds authority in this universe? Well, somebody has to decide and since we're all subatomic articles, we all do.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Looks like RRS members have a big disagreement with each other. One of you said there was nothing to talk about in the opening post, but others have rattled on forever. Some of you said you can know what’s moral through logic, etc, and others have said there’s no such absolutes. Why not have a private powwow where all you purposeless patterns of particles can thrash out your differences?
Another idea. Since some of you know there’s no absolutes, and nothing absolutely wrong with massacring Muslims and dumping them in mass graves filled with pig guts, just different opinions, why not send CSE a nice Xmas present? Write them a letter saying there was nothing absolutely wrong with Hovind saying that. also let them know there’s nothing absolutely wrong with teaching cretinist lies from the buybull in public schools. Just different opinions about it. You have your peers, CSE have theirs.
You can send the Catholic Church a nice gift too. tell them all those crimes of theirs you whined about, like burning atheists at the stake, were just a difference of opinion. Nothing absolutely wrong with it. they had peers who told them they should do it. Nothing absolutely wrong if they did it nowadays, either.
Even better idea. Put all that on your home page. Save everyone lots of time.
Spirale2, are you also a 'purposeless pattern of particles'?
I really don't see how a god makes morals absolute. Wouldn't they still be arbitrary?
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
Some of us were willing to waste our time while others decided that they had more interesting activities to pursue than trying to educate an uneducated moron. That's a big disagreement?
Have you even read a single word we've typed? We can reason out what we consider to be moral based on our biological intuition and what would benefit society. However, we also know that if there is no magical bearded man, then morality has no absolutes.
If you've explored this site at all, you'd have observed that we do discuss our differences. However, we try to analyze and dissect them in a mature and thoughtful manner, not just madly ranting at each other the way you're doing right now.
Furthermore, what is your intention in continuing to use the appeal to absurdity when you still haven't actually confronted our arguments?
Non sequitur. The fact that there are no moral absolutes doesn't mean that I should go out and kill people. I would have taken someone else's life for no reason, and I would end up in jail.
Wow, okay, this isn't going anywhere. You're just repeating yourself over and over again without addressing our responses.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Wow... it's almost like "atheism" is made up of a wide variety of people with different backgrounds in philosophy, science, and the arts. It's almost as if "atheism" doesn't have any dogma. It's like... wow, dude... people's ideas are judged by their own merit, not by a holy book or an unquestionable spooky spirit.
I wonder if there's any merit to this crazy idea of... what shall we call it... individuality...
Well, the some of us (I'm still not sure I know who they are) who think this is ok are at odds with practically everybody else, including the owners of the site, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
Then again, why don't you hold your breath. Wait for it.
Would you explain to the studio audience how the existence of various opinions leads to the notion that all opinions are equal?
Seriously, dude. Try to wrap your brain around this. Values are dependent on systems. Within any given system, there are absolutes. There are absolutely no atheists who believe in god. (By the strict definition. I'm sure there are people who claim to be atheists who believe in god. Their claim is a lie.) Within the system of social creatures known as "humans," there has never been a culture that didn't have rules about who you could kill, when you could do it, and what methods you could use. It's not magical. Apes do it too. They just don't have it written in books because they don't have advanced language.
What you fail to recognize is that every social animal has some sort of morals. If you'd like (I'm holding my breath) you can read about how genes have been demonstrated to cause morality to exist:
Evolutionary Origin of Altruism
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
The existence of a God has nothing to do with morals. All a God does is presumably define a set of rules or laws, with specified punishments for breaking them.
IOW, God-based 'morals' are just a version of our legal system, not our moral code.
God only defines morals if you believe 'might makes right'.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
What I am suggesting is that on was basis does a god set the moral standard? If it is based on nothing but the whim of god this it is arbitrary. However if god bases it on something other than a whim, then why wouldn't we be able to use the same methodology to come to the conclusion that a god did. Unless of course that something isn't something we interact with, but then it wouldn't be reasonable to consider it for our morality. Even if that were the case it would mean a deity prevented us from having any information or the capacity on how to obtain the morality it came across. Does that make any sense?
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
What a blithering, vacuous moron.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
i second that.
BTW, it reminds me of the Barker-Lounsbery debate. Lounsbery said something to the effect:
"A Materialist can't get mad at the rapist of his daughter because the rapist is just acting in accord with his nature."
Um, moron! if that is true, then the guy COULD get mad at the rapist of his daughter because it would be in keeping with his nature. That is, getting mad would be a response just as undeniable as the rapists actions. To suggest otherwise sets up a Strawman and is special Pleading and probably 16 other fallacies...
these guys are so god damn fucking stupid.
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov