Back from the 414 Conference.
My only complaint is the title.
It’s not as cool as ‘Reason Rally‘.
Though we lacked style, we had content in abundance.
I gave a couple of presentations collectively entitled:
“The Wisdom of Atheism”
Using screenshots…
(so I wouldn’t be accused of misquoting)…
I presented a tiny bit of the wisdom found in atheism.
Well…actually…
…that’s not true…
…I presented EVERYTHING atheism has to offer.
It took three minutes…
…because the computer crashed and had to be restarted.
It took a little longer to explain the results of an atheistic worldview.
Feminism, abortion, animal rights activism, suicide…
…and other rational, reasonable, results.
Faithful readers of this blog know that I am fair-minded, agreeable and handsome.
So I didn’t want to ‘put words in the atheist mouth’.
I asked the students if they’d write a few questions that I could post here and we’d let the atheists answer them.
They were happy to oblige.
These are not ALL the questions, just some of them that were too hard for me.
I’ll leave it to the atheists to answer any or all of the following:
- Why don’t we say animals are evil when they kill humans but we accuse humans of evil when they shoot a gorilla?
- Why did single cells evolve to become more complex?
- Does evil exist?
- Why should we follow the golden rule at those times when it makes our personal existence uncomfortable?
- Why should we feed starving people in other countries when it doesn’t directly benefit us?
- What’s the purpose of living?
- My Dad committed suicide. How would you cope with this?
That’s probably enough for now.
Have at it, atheists!
These young minds are eager to drink from your fountain of knowledge!
97 Responses
I believe atheists spend way too much time defending their belief that something , namely GOD, doesn’t exist. If they are so certain He doesn’t exist why put all that effort into it arguing about it? Simple, it’s harder to prove something doesn’t exist, when it actually does, than trying to prove that it does exist when it really doesn’t.
John 15:19: ” If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.” God exists…everyone knows that. But, those that are not His chosen (the elect), do not have the understanding regarding God’s nature, because He’s not going to share that with them, because He has not chosen them to be one of His. Ephesians 1:11-12: “In Him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of Him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His will, in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory .It’s not Rocket Science,as much as it is presented as such by atheists; it’s Gospel truth, which an atheist has to deny because they cannot understand. On the bright side, since no one knows, except God, who the elect are and when they will be converted, even an atheist (seriously, it can and does happen). So you atheists, some of you may very well be eating your own words at some point in time only God knows about. But, while you remain an atheist you set an example to Christians of what NOT to be like, so THANK YOU for your comments which seem inane but are allowing us Christians to practice one of God’s commands: Matthew 28:19-20 (NIV) ” Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Because 2 Timothy 3:16 says “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…” Now atheists may not think they are being taught anything, it’s all rubbish, but look at just how hard they argue to deny what we say…”me thinks thou doth protest too much” (Shakespeare). I laugh , and then I pray for them….they hate that most of all…why do you suppose that is? Because they know right from wrong, innately, but have no ability to make the right choice…you know, dead in their trespasses and sin? As we all were, but through Christ’s sanctifying death on the cross for His people, Christians are saved…but we are not yet perfected and therefore we still sin, and we KNOW it, and we repent. Sanctification is a process, but in the end it’s complete. Philippians 1:6: “… being confident of this, that He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.” The only real difference between a Christian and an atheist is that we Christians have the ability to understand that God exists, and therefore we have hope. Because atheists do not have this hope, they argue their invalid, and dare I say, moot, point, albeit vehemently. So pray for them, and if nothing else, converse with them and who knows, God may be using any one of His people to plant the seed of truth. Ephesians 2:10: “For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”
We Christians don’t know what our future holds but we know Who holds the future, and we belong to Him who has promised never to forsake us. Deuteronomy 31:6 “Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified because of them, for the Lord your God goes with you; He will never leave you nor forsake you.” Philippians 2:13: “…for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill His good purpose.” What hope do atheists have, of being saved one day? We know that’s possible, but they do not, unless the Holy Spirit moves in their hearts. There’s the gospel Trinity in a nutshell, though John could probably do a much better job, and with emojis.
You know why college kids are defecting, John? They READ.
Internet: Where religion goes to die.
I read. I like books. Obviously I don’t count though because I haven’t read books officially approved by atheists to generate as much sterile knowledge and hopelessness possible in my non-existent soul.
Also, you obviously haven’t wandered far from the familiar on the internet. You should get out more. Look around. You may be surprised to find this isn’t the only Christian blog on the block. Shocking, I know. There’s actually more of them out there.
You haven’t read the books, but you do like to pronounce on the ideas inside and people who identify with them.
That doesn’t surprise me.
You know what I do and don’t read? Gosh, you’re good. What colour am I thinking of?
You’re the one who said they haven’t read the books.
Continuing in the vein of empowering favourable terminology unrelated to common use in reality, look at how the 414 project abuses the terms ‘truth’ and ‘knowledge’… as if ‘defending’ religious belief was in any way, shape, or fashion respectful of reality’s arbitration of these claims to be true, to be knowledgeable. Of course, the 414 project is not respectful of independent, verifiable ideas and explanations we call ‘truth’ or ‘knowledge’ about reality whatsoever; it is full of respect (with powerful music and emotional imagery) for their version of ‘protecting’ faith-based belief… faith-based belief masquerading as ‘truth’, faith-based belief dressed up as if ‘knowledge’, faith-based belief presented as if a reasonable, rational explanations about reality. And yet, surprising exactly no one who thinks with even a modicum of critical thought, reality is allowed no say in this matter.
Like th promoters of 414, such religious merchants repackage why seven out of ten college and university students leave their faith – as most grown-ups do with other magical and childish ideas – and pretend that its a failure of learning effective religious apologetics! And look who steps up to sell them this idea?
Is it any wonder that many deconvertees are so deeply angry and often depressed at being so blatantly manipulated and lied to under the guise of piousness and virtue as if rejecting truth and knowledge when, in fact, these are the reasons for leaving?
Dominionism, anyone? A pathetic attempt at power mongering. John, did you and all those other white guys get off on your narcissistic aping of your war god, Yahweh?
Come on, Carmen. No winky emoji?!!
No, John. Completely serious. Looked at the video and did some reading. It REEKS of dominionism. Nothing funny about that shit.
Agreed. The biggest laughs came when the atheist quotes were on the screen . As you said, kids know how to read.
Enough nonsense, John. I believe you have some outstanding questions/responses to address, above. You’re ‘on’!
Yeah? I am? You exercising dominion over me?
I’m going on stage in a few minutes. I will answer questions when an get a chance. 😉
Here’s a riddle. What does the 414 Project and prehistory have in common?
Both are events that Tildeb speaks about with absolute certainty though he wasn’t there to witness.
Spoken like a true Ham. . . Ken, that is.
Ken Ham was also not present at either event.
Another rabbit trail . ..did I suggest that he was?
Sorry. I thought you were making a joke.
I would love for there to be a video of your presentation. I’d love to see it. Does such a video exist?
Allallt, I asked JB via text earlier if there was video, and he said no. 🙁
Oh, did I misinterpret the video message, John?
Oh, did I accurately represent your commentary, Tildeb?
I have to laugh at you, John.
It must be difficult for you, not being able to give a simple yes or no answer. Quite a feat, actually.
I know! People laugh at me all the time! It’s my God-given gift.
Yes, you did, but then you simply don’t care about what is the case or what we can actually know about it. Your intention is to sell a product – full of promise, empty of knowledge – by hook or by crook and profit by it regardless of the cost to respecting what true and what is knowable. What does that say about your character, John? Quite a bit, John, and it isn’t flattering.
Now quick… come up with a quip and divert attention away from what it is you’re actually doing and shift it to me for daring to question the integrity about your motives to ‘teach’ about what you want to sell: not truth and knowledge as falsely advertised but how to fool the credulous and buy into faith-based belief… by misrepresenting atheism (which obviously contains no inherent ‘wisdom’).
Why would you assume my motives for expressing my beliefs are different (and more insidious) than your motives for doing exactly the same thing this fine morn?
Because I’m not expressing my beliefs, John; I’m expressing the condemnation of a duplicity I recognize that you seem to be rather proud of being a part, namely, ‘teaching’ apologetics as a defense against reasonable and rational and legitimate skepticism (of these faith-based religious claims you hold to be true and deserving of defense) that is inherent in atheism. You do so by pretending you seek to ‘teach’ truth and knowledge rather than what you are actually teaching: misrepresentation and lies in the name of piety. That action demonstrates (not my belief but observation of) a motive other than what the 414 project claims and, by being an advocate for it, a motive you share that reflects poorly on your intellectual and moral character.
You do not care about what is true. You do not care about knowledge. You care about selling a deceitful product – namely, your religious faith – and defend it by maligning those who know its deceitful. Once you understand what the verb ‘to know’ means, you’ll recognize why your counter charge against me exercising my (supposedly) equivalent belief is no such thing but believing it is demonstrates a confusion you hold upon which you then teach your religiously inspired lies and deceit.
Got it.
I don’t actually believe what I’m saying. I’m just showing off and making money.
And you’re qualified to level these charges because you understand what it means “to know” things.
This seems like an emotional critique and not a scientific one.
Oh, John.
*sigh*
I suspect, although I don’t know, you really do believe the apologetics you sell. Your belief doesn’t make it truthful or knowledgeable. And that’s the issue: you’re selling it as if it were when you know it isn’t. It’s faith, John. Not truth. Not knowledge. Faith. Sell it as faith and you won’t hear a peep of criticism about your character out of me for doing so. Some of the best people I know are believers in various gods. That’s fine. I will disagree with the content behind the belief in all likelihood but at least you would be an honest merchant. This 414 project is dishonest because it doesn’t do this; it pretend it’s selling what’s true and knowable from the start. Thos have nothing to do with faith-based claims.
Yet isn’t it amazing that I have to point this out to you – that the quality of your faith-based belief does not affect the truth value of it nor improve the lack of knowledge value associated with its claims – in your rush to defend yourself by accusing me of some imaginary but equivalent belief.
I sometimes wonder if you ever think – if you seriously consider what’s being offered (for free no less) in response to you request for these offerings, mind you – before writing your quips. Maybe if you stopped trying to perform all the time, you might take a moment for self- (and even selfish) reflection.
Oh, Tildeb.
*sigh*
The only difference between my faith and yours is that I admit I have it.
Wait, did Tildeb just say “profit” and “hook and crook”?
As your manager, I expect to see a portion of those profits.
It’s probably going to be… What… Like a million dollars, right?
*Rubs greedy hands together*
Yes. Tildeb has blown the lid off our scheme. The secret is out! There are HUGE profits in teaching apologetics to college age kids. This is the reason I quit my day job.
Tildeb,
I don’t know about you, but this scenario is reminding me of Junior High (I spend a good bit of my time there). I can picture the scene: Two adolescents, getting a huge kick out of disrupting a serious talk by acting like dorks at their desks. The teacher takes them outside to speak to them alone, and the assclownery continues, with the two in question refusing to listen to reason or logic. I think at this point, it usually wise for the adult in the room to leave them to their own devices. After all, the history of the relationship indicates that Bevis and Butthead only show up for one reason anyway – to see how much attention they can get. They certainly are not interested in learning anything.
You forgot the winky emoji…
That’s because I was being serious. So is Tildeb.
I see. So maybe you can seriously explain why you assume I have nefarious motives for presenting my beliefs? What evidence suggests that I’m intentionally being deceitful in order to make a buck?
There you go again,John, on another rabbit trail.
Did I say that??
…that was the gist of Tildeb’s comment.
Okay. Seriously explain why you’re so upset with me.
Bemused would be a better word than upset, John. 🙂
Thanks for clarifying. I want to be accurate.
What have I done to bemuse you?
The fact that whenever someone asks you a serious question, you give some kind of backhand, jokey response. It’s unflattering, John. A straight answer is what is required.
Also, I think perhaps Tildeb and I are under differing assumptions. I assume you are at the Conference as an entertainer, not as a presenter. It’s clear that Tildeb, and perhaps Allalt, think you are one of the speakers/presenters trying to recruit liars. . . err.. . ambassadors for Jesus. Which is correct?
That’s your “serious” question?
Apply a little of that tenacious search for truth you’re always telling me about and I bet you can uncover the answer yourself. 😉
Ummm. . .see what you just did here, John? (proved my point)
If your point was that you didn’t even read the original article…
John,
You are a smart guy. Which is why speaking with you is so exasperating. You really ought to know better. Please read what Tildeb wrote. Then THINK about it. (I know I’ve told you this before; it’s become a litany)
See that ‘sigh’ in Tildeb’s comment? That’s what I feel like, too.
Speaking with me is exasperating because I’m smart?
I usually find speaking with smart people kind of enlightening. Sometimes even enjoyable.
Smart people don’t criticize me personally for disagreeing with them. Smart people evaluate ideas separately from the individual espousing them. And smart people don’t accept frustration as a legitimate argument.
Ahhh. . .I see. . .so I’M the one who isn’t smart. Got it.
I just feel bad for spilling the beans about my connection, instead of letting Carmen sleuth that out for herself.
She really enjoys being the one to keep everybody else in the loop.
Sorry, Carmen!
She spends a lot of time in Jr. High. I wonder what year she graduates?
She’s rubber and you’re glue…
And you’re not even FUNNY glue, either! (*tongue out*)
But I make her laugh…
Y’all don’t know many Christian scientists or philosophers, do you?
Y’all don’t know of any pedophile preachers and priests, do you?
See? The two must be compatible, right?
And all atheists have the sun shining out of them. We can’t measure with the same ruler, now can we?
Carmen – Yes, yes I can. There’s no evidence of a desire to learn or to adapt. Simply keep pruning reality until they can make it fit their beliefs (instead of pruning their beliefs until they fit reality).
Back atcha. You have no desire to learn or adapt either. You’ve made up your mind. Why entertain the idea that there is a God and that He’s not what religious stigma says He is? Dangerous thinking. Folly. Logic is way safer, because you get to choose.
I do a lot of entertaining the idea of a God. It falls apart. But I have the integrity to answer challenges posed to me. I even play Devil’s Advocate and accept claims to see where they lead. I entertain the idea a lot.
Now, Carmen’s comment to me is in a context which includes the previous thread and my conversation with mrsmcmommy, where she dodges a vast majority of the challenges I posed to here. Then John, here, dodges Carmen’s question (and mine, with the promise of an answer coming in time) and you dodged my answers with TLDR.
So, really, the behaviour of showing no desire whatsoever to learn or adapt is not being shown by me. It has, however, been demonstrated by you, mrsmcmommy and John.
So, you can say “back atcha” all you like. But I can actually present evidential behaviour to support the claim when I make it. You’ve just got the 90’s opt-out retort.
Jasmine, I’ve been trying to engage Allallt in a logic/philosophy conversation on another post. (https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2016/06/05/atheists-should-be-monks/comment-page-1/#comment-1816)
I’m afraid the hard thing for natural scientists to accept is that logic isn’t safe either.
It necessarily leads to an infinite loop of “how do you know?” This is because you need to use logic in order to prove that logic exists.
So, again, you can’t think your way out of it. At some point, you have to make an assumption, just to avoid rocking in a corner of a loony bin. 🙂
I posed the underlying philosophical issue as a chicken/egg question to Allallt: which came first, the mind or logic?
(By the way, the same problem can be seen in mathematics. It’s summarized most clearly by Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems. But, if it’s TL then DR.) 😀
I’m so disappointed. I actually thought I might have received some intelligent answers here, but instead I got #TLDR.
My biggest beef with the so-called “Christian template” is that it shows just how underdeveloped, un-researched, uninformed, and retarded the general understanding of Christianity is. It’s a classic case of arguing against atheistic stigma and clichés, yet judging Christianity by every possible misinterpretation and misrepresentation.
The only thing I take away from atheism as it has been modelled for me is that logical and thoughtful study only applies to the beliefs they like. The rest of the world can burn (metaphorically though. There is no hell).
Correct, Jasmine, there is no hell. It’s the scary part of the myth put in for children and child-like adults.
😉
Give them a little time to collect their thoughts, Jasmine. These aren’t softball questions.
I’m confident that better answers are forthcoming. At the very least, there will be more winky face emojis. 😉
I wouldn’t judge the ‘template’ until you’ve seen a sincere answer.
Also “TLDR”? What, you though insightful answers can be put in a tweet? That’s your problem.
Actually no, I didn’t expect a tweet. But it seems illogical that logic must take that many words to explain.
You can read it and condense it for me, if you want.
Here, I’ve offered a template for Christianity’s answers to the questions.
Why don’t we say animals are evil when they kill humans but we accuse humans of evil when they shoot a gorilla?
Because morality only applies to people, because God.
Why did single cells evolve to become more complex?
Evolution didn’t happen, because God.
Does evil exist?
Yes. Because God.
No, wait, not because God. Because people. God didn’t create everything; he didn’t create evil. People created evil. Because of a snake.
Why should we follow the golden rule at those times when it makes our personal existence uncomfortable?
Because God has deemed it good, and else the fiery pits of Hell, because God.
Why should we feed starving people in other countries when it doesn’t directly benefit us?
Love your neighbour, even when your neighbour isn’t another Jew but a stranger from many miles away, because God.
That’s the only conceivable motivation: because God, else fire.
What’s the purpose of living?
To love God, otherwise God will burn you for eternity.
My Dad committed suicide. How would you cope with this?
You are loved, because God. Not because of your family members, who also love you. Their love is shit. Only God’s love matters.
Nothing else is beautiful.
This is a pretty bad ‘template’. 😉
I’ll likely not use it when I’m writing my follow-up. 😉 😉
Just one question, John – WHICH god?
Whoops! My bad! I didn’t make it clear that you’re supposed to ANSWER questions not ASK them.
I’m inferring from history that your contribution, Carmen, should be just clicking “like” and adding winky emojis to all the other atheist comments.
Why don’t you answer the questions?
I challenge you to offer your thoughts on how Christianity answers these questions.
I will in good time. 😉
I look forward to it.
REALLY, John? After the back-and-forth we’ve had on this blog and another?
So, how about you answer my question and Allalt’s?
Oh, and I would add another response to your last question about he suicide of your father. Here’s what I would say to someone I cared about: I am terribly sorry that happened. I don’t know your father but he must have been in a world of hurt to do such a thing, which had very little (if anything) to do with you. I have the idea that people who take such drastic measures feel that their families are better off without them, even though the people affected feel quite the opposite. As terrible as it is, the bottom line is that THAT person gets to decide about their own life. Not you, not me, not anyone else. That’s reality, John. Sometimes reality is not comfortable, but as an adult it must be dealt with.
Allalt, are you seeing a pattern with their evasive responses?
I’m happy to address these questions, but you have to recognise that my answers come from my philosophy. They do not come from atheism. Atheism is another thing that arises from my philosophy; it is not my world view, it is a consequence of my world view. They are very different things, a point that if you can’t grasp casts serious doubts on your credibility to speak on these issues.
I was going to weave some jokes in, in honour of the fact you have “comedy” in your blog name. But, some of them included bad language and I can’t really see any evidence that anyone makes jokes on this blog. So I’ll keep it dead-pan.
Why don’t we say animals are evil when they kill humans but we accuse humans of evil when they shoot a gorilla?
We tend to reserve moral judgement for persons that we assume are capable of making moral judgements. When the ebola virus kills a human, we don’t assume the virus has moral culpability because we don’t assume it can do moral reasoning. This exists on a sort of scale. It’s the reason babies can vomit in your shoes, but the child minder wouldn’t be so easily forgiven.
Gorillas can morally reason. Most of the apes can; they can ponder fairness and show compassion. That child in Cincinnati was not the first ever to fall into a primate enclosure — but normally the primate looks after the child, or even returns the child to the door it knows humans wonder in and out of (to feed them).
What the public doesn’t seem to appreciate is that trained primate experts made the decision to shoot the gorilla; individuals who will have found the decision very difficult. But, from their expertise and against their compassion, they decided there was no peaceful resolution. For what ever reason, it looked like that gorilla was going to be a danger. So, to hell with the gorilla; save the human.
Basically, the public is upset because it doesn’t know what moral reasoning went on in the 10 minutes before the gorilla was shot.
Why did single cells evolve to become more complex?
Do you mean to ask why single cell organisms evolved to become multi-cellular ones? Because that’s a question no one has an answer to.
If, however, you really meant to ask how something became increasingly complex through 3.5 billion years and trillions of generations of evolution, then I can’t help you.
Does evil exist?
Define your terms.
Does a scale of good and bad exist? Yes, of course. Can something be said to be increasingly evil? That depends on what you mean. If by “evil” you mean ‘really very very bad’, then yes. If you explicitly mean something theological, then I’ve never seen any evidence for it.
Why should we follow the golden rule at those times when it makes our personal existence uncomfortable?
There’s no reason you should or why you should compel others to. I certainly wouldn’t want someone with scatological fetish treating me the way she might wish I treated her. The Golden Rule is, at best, a starting point for a conversation about morality and ethics. Certainly self-defence doesn’t fall within the confines of the Golden Rule either.
Why should we feed starving people in other countries when it doesn’t directly benefit us?
There’s a difference between ‘should we do it?’ and ‘is it good?’. This is a question that should plague the theologian too: yes, you can run up rhetorical circles trying to define ‘goodness’ in relation to a ‘God’, but it’s still only self-interest that ever compels the human to obey the goodness.
Assuming we have enough food (we do), feeding those without is good. There’s a lot of moral reasoning as to why that is the case.
One such way is a model of moral epistemology (how we come to know morality) that has to do with perfectly rational beings deciding on an agreement for behaviour to relate to a transaction, where the perfectly rational beings do not know what role they will play in the transaction after they are done drafting the contract. We can never know for sure what the perfectly rational beings will decide, but we are basically rational and have a history of improving rational discussion through free speech — and the basic patterns are available to us.
Another is the utilitarian idea of wellbeing: it is good to value, protect and otherwise safeguard wellbeing. Starvation is a threat to starvation. Food should be distributed to minimise starvation.
I believe the secular answer to the “should” challenge is a nobler and more moral one than the religious one: because it is good. This isn’t without it’s challenges (https://goo.gl/ekuopE), but it is an improvement on not wanting to go to Hell.
What’s the purpose of living?
Ah, the curse of freedom. I’ll assume you’ve asked that because you are very aware of the philosophies that answer this question, including existentialism and those which relate to it. There’s no need, of course, to move away from nihilism. But I am an existentialist (I suppose) and a nihilist (in a sense)
My Dad committed suicide. How would you cope with this?
Classic comedy material, this. When a parent commits suicide I blame the children. I think it’s important they know it’s their fault.
No, but in all seriousness: as authentically, sincerely and honestly as I could. Without false platitudes, if I can help it.
The sentence “Starvation is a threat to starvation” should read “Starvation is a threat to wellbeing”.
I await the answers to these questions with bated breath.
To avoid TLDR,
Why don’t we say animals are evil when they kill humans but we accuse humans of evil when they shoot a gorilla?
Sometimes we do.
Why did single cells evolve to become more complex?
In a nutshell, gravity.
Does evil exist?
No. It’s not a thing.
Why should we follow the golden rule at those times when it makes our personal existence uncomfortable?
Often we don’t.
Why should we feed starving people in other countries when it doesn’t directly benefit us?
To reduce suffering.
What’s the purpose of living?
There isn’t one independent of us.
My Dad committed suicide. How would you cope with this?
I didn’t know your dad.
Ooh, can you elaborate on your answer to 2? That sounds interesting. I couldn’t find anything when I looked to attempt an answer.
Sure. It’s from Hawkings’ Grand Design. The nutshell is that physics causes a cascade of effects… leading to chemistry, leading to biology, leading to cells, leading to the emergence of properties we label as complex.
Of course, none of John’s believer crew here has demonstrated any wish to consider with any honesty or seriousness or actual intellectual integrity why some creator god decided an amoeba should have a hundred times the genome of the paltry human… busy as the Creator has been POOF!ing stuff into existence (see how reasonable and rational that ‘explanation’ is?); instead, they ignore reality itself and go with a simpleton’s version of make-believe: creationists assume complexity is a meaningful catch-all term that magically defies some naturalistic explanation. (It doesn’t.) This assumption guarantees idiocy of the topic, and the crew has not disappointed.
And so the correct answer to such idiocy is with a similar catch-all term to accurately refute it: gravity.
I see what you did there.
If evil cannot exist because it is not a thing, then how does morality exist, or emotions (like caring about others suffering), or thoughts in general. Why aren’t we all just Dr. Spocks with only logic (which technically, according to you, cannot exist either because it’s not a thing) as our mindset?
See, that’s a good question. But to answer it, I’m going to have to use quite a few words. So… gird thy loins! Jasmine is already excused because the length alone will giver her vapours, I presume.
Words are symbols (like numbers). They represent stuff. Some of that stuff is real. Water. Rock. Chair. Some if it is not Warm. Heavy. Style. Some of these words are used to to describe relationships we have noticed (say, numbers to represent differences of quantity) and we forget that the stuff we’re talking about don’t exist as things independent of the brains thinking about it.
We build a construct – a mental projection – to represent various ideas, various mental constructs involving relationships and comparisons. These ideas can be very broad indeed (say, behaviour) that are not in and of themselves real things but represent of a broad spectrum of related things. This is how we categorize.
Very often we use words to symbolize our projections (say, north) that are entirely relative. We are very good at creating such mapping. We figured out long ago that we didn’t need some universal fixed point to do all our comparisons; all we needed was an agreed upon point… relative to us. This is how we measure anything (say, a unit of heaviness we call ‘weight’). None of our measurement terms mean anything because aren’t real. They are mental constructs used as a means for us to compare and contrast. You can’t point to a ‘heavy’ nor find the location in space and time of ‘weight’. These terms are dependent upon some relative scale for meaning (say, pounds or grams or bushels of rice). In math, we say we cannot compute comparative properties (like quantity) without first agreeing to keep the units of quantity the same. In this way we can measure to an astounding degree of accuracy all kinds of ways to determine comparative properties of real things. Heck, we can even calculate so exactly that we can launch a rocket from a spinning globe and land its payload on a tumbling meteor with a different orbit millions of kilometers away after months of transit! The fact that all these units are relative to subjective and selected points of terrestrial reference in no way reduces the accuracy of their utility to us.
You ask “(i)f evil cannot exist because it is not a thing, then how does morality exist, or emotions (like caring about others suffering), or thoughts in general?”
Well, let’s be careful of what our terms mean. Evil is a term that doesn’t describe a thing. It’s not real. You can’t point to an ‘evil’ with properties independent of thee and me existing with mass in space and time. It’s a term we use to describe one end of a moral spectrum. The other end we (usually) agree to call ‘good’. So what is ‘it’ when we use the term ‘evil’? Well, it’s like a term of any other measuring set: like ‘pound’ or ‘gram’ or ‘bushel of rice’; it is a term of comparison for the very worst ‘effects’ of behaviour. That’s all it means. Recognizing that it’s a relative term and not a thing in itself is important to differentiate what is real from what is our mental projection. (This is especially important understand why ‘god’ is actually a projection from us outwards and not an independent thing bestowing stuff on us inwards… but that’s a topic for another day). So when we talk about ‘evil’ we are relying on a shared spectrum that may not, in fact, be shared at all but open to debate about its negative effects.
Morality is another such mental construct term. That’s what we call the spectrum book-ended by ‘good’ and ‘evil’. It’s often confused with ethics, a spectrum book-ended by relative terms ‘right’ and ‘wrong’
The problem I often encounter is that people don’t really understand how something can be not real but symbolic – say, a ‘gram’ – and yet be of such tremendous utility and astounding accuracy differentiating properties of real stuff. They think it has to be real/useful or imaginary/useless. This understanding isn’t the case. We can utilize morality to determine very real differences in effect from behaviour… as long as we first agree on the units of measurement!
God’s wishes is a terrible unit of measurement because there IS no agreement on what this means! Human well-being can be a much better spectrum to determine the morality of an action because we can actually measure a lot of comparative stuff that affects it.
The over-reaching term ‘compassion’ (com meaning ‘with’ or ‘shared’, and passion meaning ‘suffering’ or ‘aroused’) is a tricky beast because it involves a very special brain function certain primates and other vertebrates share. Generally speaking, we have the ability to activate neurons and dendrites in our brain that allows us to experience a secondhand event – say watching someone cut themselves – and make it a firsthand experience in our brains (it releases the same chemicals as the person experiencing the cut even though we are not the ones being cut). This is the root brain function of what we classify as ‘reciprocity’ (note the power we experience from our dreams that do the same thing… our brains respond physically and chemically to imagined events in our brains! Ah, the joy of a bicameral brain!) and we utilize all kinds of amazing effects from this ability (including, unfortunately, some of the negative stuff that can and does lead to chronic mental and emotional problems). It’s important to understand that our emotions are really chemical cascades with very real physical processes and effects on our biology… processes that we can and do regulate to some degree and with some effect if we know how.
Because we can measure to some degree effects independently of the person undergoing an experience, we know that what this brain function these terms represent – when it comes to utilizing organized and activated neural pathways we call ‘thoughts’ – is quite real. What the thoughts are about – think ‘dreaming’ – aren’t necessarily so but our brains respond as if they were! We don;t have to be cut for our brains to respond to another person being cut. This comes with our biology. In this sense we already ‘know’ what it is like even if we’ve never experienced being cut ourselves. Now, we don’t know much, granted, but we do know something. Our biology has prepared the ground, so to speak, for tackling our environments.
This is complex stuff. And we are just at the beginning of neuroscience, just starting to understand brain function. But here’s the take-away point from wading through all of this comment: the answers we seek have never been, are not, and probably never shall come from religion. On that path lies ignorance and superstition masquerading as answers possessing knowledge about the real world. They’re not. Religious ‘answers’ are pseudo-answers that fail to model reality as it is, fail to provide meaningful insight into how it operates and what it contains. Religion only pretends to be about respecting reality and seeking to understand it better. It’s a thief in the night, claiming expertise that upon examination is empty of any real world knowledge value and selling itself to the credulous and gullible as if it offers real insight. It’s a subject without an object and one that is adverse to respecting reality as the arbiter of claims made about it. That’s why religious faith-based belief is itself a broken methodology if one is trying to gain any honest understanding of reality and why it is now, has been and in all likelihood always shall be incompatible with the scientific method. It is, in a nutshell, superstitious nonsense gilded by magical thinking and a guaranteed way to fool one’s self into thinking one knows what one does not know.
I read it all.
Of course, I have a few questions:
How close are we to a scientifically measurable unit of ‘goodness’?
When mankind finally understands this complex stuff, would you be in favor of regulating human thought to do away with all religion?
When we toss religion away, which scientists and/or researchers should be the arbiters of good and evil?
John, what’s with being so snide? I’ve already explained that we can measure stuff by effect on an agreed scale such as human well-being. We can determine which stuff improves it and which stuff detracts from it. In this way we can inform what we mean by ‘good’ and ‘evil’ by real world effects.
But you already knew this. So your approach is snide and condescending as if without some belief in some god’s supposed moral rules we are completely lost. That’s so stupid it’s self-refuting, yet you go there as a strategy not for any honest engagement but to divert from these real world advancements in improving the human condition in very real ways and means. Of course, it threatens the merchants of superstitious nonsense that some younger people actually have the mental acuity not believing in some version of Oogity Boogity! you just so happen to believe in – bestowed as you are by being one of the Very Special Chosen Ones with moral revelations whispered from your god to your ever-so-special ear- but by reason and measureables against knowable effects to determine moral value.
You then ask as if curious, “When mankind finally understands this complex stuff, would you be in favor of regulating human thought to do away with all religion?” Is anyone home in your thinking? Have I made any suggestion ever about thought control? No, John. I haven’t. Go figure. So what’s with the question? Well, why might you want to imply that I have a totalitarian motive? Tofurther discussion? Maybe you prefer your version of your Dear Leader’s Thought Police but I certainly don’t like any. What I do like is to have a ringside seat learning about advancements in human knowledge about our brains. Imagine that… someone who really is curious. How very threatening.
Your final questions again implies a totalitarian version you want it to appear I favour. You ask, “When we toss religion away, which scientists and/or researchers should be the arbiters of good and evil?” as if this is a reasonable question. It isn’t. But you already know this. It’s your Dear Leader that is cause for concern here. I have no such faith. What I do have – unlike you – is unfettered respect for reality to help test my beliefs and guide my opinions about the real world, which just so happens to include real people undergoing real suffering that I think we can probably mitigate not by imposing your Iron Age religious despotism but by apply good reasoning and good reasons that work to improve human well being.
I’m not sure how to dialog with you when questions are ‘snide and condescending’.
I have never suggested that we are lost without belief in god’s supposed moral rules. Belief in morality is irrelevant to the existence of morality. You’re doing a good job of expressing your position. You’re doing a poor job of expressing my position.
You didn’t make specific reference to thought control.
You did say, “It’s important to understand that our emotions are really chemical cascades with very real physical processes and effects on our biology… processes that we can and do regulate to some degree and with some effect if we know how.” You’ll forgive me for misunderstanding. I do not possess the unfettered respect for reality that you do. I’ll likely not understand a long deposition on the differences between thought and emotion so for the sake of simplicity, can we consider them both to be products of brain function?
Not sure why you reacted so negatively to the idea of totalitarianism. You shouldn’t be so quick to reject it. It hasn’t worked in the past but that’s only because we didn’t have the power to control those chemical cascades. If a pill could eliminate ‘Iron Age religious despotism’ why wouldn’t you insist that pill be swallowed? Why wouldn’t you eradicate 414 Conferences and stop the deceitful manipulation? When the pill exists that opens my eyes to the truth that you already grasp, wouldn’t it be evil to let me go on living in a delusion?
Scientists are the only logical people to determine good and evil because they are the only ones who understand the chemistry of thought and emotion. Of course, I’m a guy who would ask, “How do we know the scientist’s chemical cascades are correct and the religious person’s are wrong?” but that question can be quickly addressed with a lobotomy.
JB, are you SURE you haven’t read Brave New World?
They took a sightly different approach to Human Progress…
The babies were engineered very carefully (in bottles), to do their predetermined job in society AND TO ENJOY it. (Because the scientist were compassionate… because they were engineered to be compassionate…)
But, anyway, the pill you describe is somewhat like Soma. It was used as a sort of tranquilizer to put the user into an (enjoyable) hallucination.
As you can imagine, it was a wonderful place…
I understood Brave New World to be fiction. Apparently, Tildeb sees it as prophetic.
#goals
I’m struck by how quickly the godless moralists back away from their own thesis when asked a couple of clarifying questions.
It’s just because he hasn’t evolved far enough to see all the benefits of THE RIGHT KIND OF brainwashing.
The extent of his current, Judeo-Christian brainwashing is showing, I think.
Clarifying questions?
Good grief, John, even a dumb and craven atheist like me can see this is a blatant lie.
I explained in detail why they were terribly poor questions you asked that had nothing to do with going after ‘truth and knowledge’ and everything to do with diverting away faith-based beliefs divorced from reality. I already said this was the motivation for your questions and you haven’t disappointed.
I notice you staying true to form. Nothing I have said, or can say, will stop you from continuing on with creating and maintaining and selling your fiction to the applause of your crew. That’s why I suggested you stop performing for your audience here and start thinking… obviously a suggestion you find too difficult to implement. And with no motivation, because it cuts your deceit off at the knees and you’re all about selling your deceit (after all, that’s what you do), to actually think outside your fiction, you demonstrate how your approach is antithetical to any pursuit of truth and knowledge. And that’s why your comments here are such a poor reflection on your character: you know better but continue on anyway.
Dumb and craven atheist? You’re not being consistent in representing your world view. I thought you possessed an ‘unfettered respect for reality to help test your beliefs and guide your opinions’. How do you test those beliefs without asking a few questions?
And how do you speak with such absolute certainty about my motives for asking those questions?
Why does it matter what my reasons are for asking those questions?
As I suggested previously, you atheists have difficulty understanding when an argument is over.
To clarify, Tildeb. If it were possible to insert the basics of truth and knowledge into a person without them having to “pursue” it, you would or wouldn’t support this?
I don’t understand the question. It’s like ‘inserting’ beauty; it doesn’t mean anything in this sense. We give the terms meaning by association. I think if one doesn’t come to offer respect learning to appreciate what is the case independent of ourselves (truth), what can be understood independent of ourselves (knowledge), then one denies any meaning to life itself (and becomes an automaton). I think it’s a terrible thing to do to ‘teach’ the credulous and gullible to replace this pursuit with pat pseudo-answers that are borrowed, that are meaningless facsimiles to what is the case, to what is known, that explain nothing about they purport to explain. Godidit as an explanation to a reality independent of ourselves is a childish diversion from the hard work of learning what is the case and navigating it successfully.
Truth is independent of ourselves…
We need to seek truth…
Thanks for your time, Tildeb.
I can agree with that.