Atheism, 21st century-style. New? Militant?

[OrphanPip]

All logic is circular. The premises can always be restated as the conclusion. That's how logic works.

In logic, a “circular argument” has a specific meaning: the conclusion restates ONE of the premises. In all logical arguments the conclusion restates two or more premises.

No, if the argument is circular, it's not actually demonstrating anything because it is attempting to prove the premise it begins with. You can't prove something with itself, otherwise you are merely stating something as a tautology, which is not an argument at all.

Also, Religion does explain why murder is wrong -- because obedience to the Law of the Lord is His first commandment, and His will determines right and wrong. In addition, there is no scientific way to determine "evil". "Bad", yes; "evil" no. Neitzsche once said, "I have destroyed the distinction between good and evil, but not that between good and bad."

Not effectively, that would be begging the question, and then you're making a prescriptive distinction of morality. I don't care if there is a scientific way to determine morality, there are far more effective ways to determine moral systems that don't rely on arbitrary prescriptions which are often oppressive. I've already said before that the harm principle advocated by classical Liberals is by far the best starting point for a moral system. I don't actually think that moral truth, good or evil exist at all; the concept of morality is merely an extension of the innate human desire to create systems of normative behavior that are a requisite part of forming complex social structures. For that reason I support the use of debate and dialogue to produce ethical systems that do the least damage and allow us to function as a society. Religious systems that begin with the preconception that their way is inherently right by divine ordination are not conductive to the effective running of a nation that respects the individual and doesn't accept arbitrary oppression.

As far as "God" vs. "Consciousness", it’s probably not a good analogy. My point is simply that there are many things that “exist” (we sense them and can talk about them) but cannot be readily observed or measured, or if they can, cannot be as well understood in that way as in more subjective and personal modes of understanding. Consciousness is one of them. For anyone who is interested, here’s a link:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

They're still a product of physical processes and thus are within reach of materialism. Subjectivity has no true meaning beyond that of the individual, you can not determine the truth of any experience or existence beyond your own through subjective means. Of course, we're social creatures that have to interact with others if we want to live so we have to bring in subjective things at times, but we should always be skeptical of conclusions drawn from subjective experiences. It's fun to share ideas and experiences too.

[OrphanPip]

While I'm not exactly ready to commit to calling them immaterial, saying they are simply the result of cognitive processes is a little dismissive.

When 510nm wavelength hits your retina it causes a conformational change in your cells which sends a signal through your optic nerve to areas in your brain associated with vision creating a unique neuronal pattern..... then you see green.

But where is the green if it is material. The greeness or qualia you are aware of occupies no spatial dimension. Nor could you find greeness by opening up someone's head and looking at their brain while you flooded their retina with 510nm light

If you say that green is your a specific brain pattern it seems to be missing the point. If this were true I might be equally valid in calling the reactions taking place in your cone cells green, or calling the light itself green. While it seems clear that greenness occurs by an intricate interplay of light and nervous system pattern, calling the light and pattern green, doesn't seem sufficient.

You're conceptualizing it incorrectly. It isn't the wavelengths at all that create the perception, but your brain's interpreting those initial impulses and sorting them into accessible information as green through patterns of impulse, conformational changes of neurons, and production of certain proteins. It is not that green has an objective existence as something outside of us, but the processes that produce our conceptualization of green in our brain are material.

[BienvenuJDC]

The part that I found interesting I put in bold.

I don't know about the facts supporting evolution. I suspect that theory will advance and improve, but I think I found a fact proving that Creationism is not what happened.

Here are my assumptions: Creationism maintains that the Genesis account was literally true and the amount of time from that initial creation to the present was also calculated to be something under 10,000 years. That means, the universe is only 10,000 years old.

The Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light years away. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy ) Since we can see it, light must have been traveling longer than the assumed lifetime of the universe to reach us.

At this point I should state the obvious, but I will refrain from doing so.

I don't want to sound like an "atheist". From my perspective, consciousness came first; we are part of it; and we can relate to that consciousness from either an atheistic or a theistic perspective. Either way is fine. But the idea that the Genesis account of creation is literally true does not make any sense and there is more than evolution that stands in its way.

If God created the stars in the Andromeda galaxy that is 2.5 million light years away, and He did so for this reason. In Genesis 1:14, "Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years." If God made these stars (and all stars) for man's use, then He could (and would) have made the trail of light between the stars and the earth. That doesn't prove anything.

[Rores28]

You're conceptualizing it incorrectly. It isn't the wavelengths at all that create the perception, but your brain's interpreting those initial impulses and sorting them into accessible information as green through patterns of impulse, conformational changes of neurons, and production of certain proteins. It is not that green has an objective existence as something outside of us, but the processes that produce our conceptualization of green in our brain are material.

Hmmm. Maybe I didn't explain myself well because that is my conception of it.

The processes that produce our conception of green is material yes. But green itself is a little more slippery, for the reasons stated in my previous post. Because green is only ever a qualia it ceases to exist in the same way as something like a block of wood or even the light that gives rise to it.

Once again I'm not ready to say yet that thoughts are "immaterial" but there does seem at present to be something fundamentally different about them.

[Rores28]

If God created the stars in the Andromeda galaxy that is 2.5 million light years away, and He did so for this reason. In Genesis 1:14, "Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years." If God made these stars (and all stars) for man's use, then He could (and would) have made the trail of light between the stars and the earth. That doesn't prove anything.

See how I predicted this..

[YesNo]

As far as "God" vs. "Consciousness", it’s probably not a good analogy. My point is simply that there are many things that “exist” (we sense them and can talk about them) but cannot be readily observed or measured, or if they can, cannot be as well understood in that way as in more subjective and personal modes of understanding. Consciousness is one of them. For anyone who is interested, here’s a link:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

I enjoyed the link. This sentence from the article seems close to what I think might be the case, but the more I read it the more I wonder if I even understand what it is saying:

Similarly one could regard “consciousness” as referring to a component or aspect of reality that manifests itself in conscious states and creatures but is more than merely the abstract nominalization of the adjective “conscious” we apply to them.

I also consider this consciousness to be conscious enough to be "friendly".

[YesNo]

See how I predicted this..

I think you are right.

Have you seen the Matrix trilogy? Maybe we are just in the matrix dreaming all of this while the machines are using us as fuel cells.

[The Atheist]

Thoughts are in no way immaterial, they are a result of cognitive processes determined by electrochemical reactions.

Yet again, you've saved me the trouble. Abstract thought is not immaterial.

The main idea I was/am trying to promote is a healthy dose of humility on all sides.

I often tell people who ask that kind of change to get the theists to agree first. If churches and religions stayed the hell out of everyone else's lives, I don't think atheists would be at all militant, but when we have the proven examples of churches trying to force their beliefs onto young minds, militant atheism actually becomes an essential anchor on theistic aspirations.

Write to the churches and get an agreement to stop evangelising, attacking gay rights and abortion and stop trying to get Noah into the classroom and we'll talk again.

Tolerance is a two-way street, and given the history of religion/s, it's their turn to make the first move.

See how I predicted this..

10 points for Gryffindor! (Not a hard prediction.)

[cyberbob]

True...it is your belief that...
...everything came from nothing
...life came from non-life
...consciousness came from unconsciousness
...intelligence came from non-intelligence
...morality came from amorality

But NONE of that comes from facts. There are NO facts that support evolution. Science does not support your beliefs. But you'll just deny it...that doesn't really make your case though.

God isn't an alternative to any of those beliefs, though. If the universe requires an explanation for its existence, and that explanation is God, then what explanation is there for God?

Why is God above needing an explanation? If he is infinite and unbound by any rules of Science then why can't the universe be infinite and the rules of Science by which it is bound just not be clear to us yet? The theory of God doesn't answer anymore questions than it raises, therefore it's a useless theory.

------------------------------

And your claim that there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution is utterly wrong. Fossils alone provide plenty of proof that evolution is true, yet they comprise only a small portion of the proof that we do have for evolution.

The fact that all animals have almost identical DNA (when compared to other living things like plants or bacteria) shows that we are all related. Recurring traits in animals that are seperated by whole continents is also evidence of evolution. Some of these animals were once one before their continents drifted apart, and in some cases the similar traits of both animals evolved independently because of either similar environments, or different environments that called for the same traits, or same traits that happen to be useful to both animals but in different ways.

I don't know where you got the idea that evolution isn't supported by science because it is. If you don't quite understand how evolution works I'd be happy to explain it to you in detail if you'd like. Just PM me and I'll show you how it really does make complete sense and there's nothing about life on Earth that can't be explained through evolution and natural selection.

[manolia]

If God created the stars in the Andromeda galaxy that is 2.5 million light years away, and He did so for this reason. In Genesis 1:14, "Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years." If God made these stars (and all stars) for man's use, then He could (and would) have made the trail of light between the stars and the earth. That doesn't prove anything.

Do you find this explanation satisfying?
The previous poster mentioned just one galaxy which happens to be the closest spiral galaxy to our milky way. How about the approx 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe? God had a strange sense of decoration it seems. And why did he put the Andomeda galaxy in a collision course with milky way i wonder.

I tend to respect peoples' beliefs although one thing i find difficult to come to terms with while talking to my theist friends is that they seem to have an answer for everything and the answer is always the same.

[Rores28]

Do you find this explanation satisfying?
The previous poster mentioned just one galaxy which happens to be the closest spiral galaxy to our milky way. How about the approx 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe? God had a strange sense of decoration it seems. And why did he put the Andomeda galaxy in a collision course with milky way i wonder.

I tend to respect peoples' beliefs although one thing i find difficult to come to terms with while talking to my theist friends is that they seem to have an answer for everything and the answer is always the same.

Arguments like this will convince the the peeps that sorta believe in Christianity because thats how they were raised, but it isn't at all convincing in the larger framework. The two problems with this and all arguments of this sort are that scientific explanations of the universe do not disprove the existence of creation they only offer and alternative explanation, and also implicit in your explanation is Well if god did this then why this? So you've already met the theist on their grounds and you've already given them the only premise they need for explanation which you already disagree with. They are always going to point out that God is all-powerful and that he works in "mysterious ways" which you've given them by your question. It just wastes time and causes the debate to run into the ground faster.

I think the thing we should be pointing out is that the cognitive strategy which they use throughout nearly every other aspect of their life when seeking truth about the world, is greatly mutated or totally absent in this particular aspect. We should then press why they think this strategy appropriate here when they don't rely on it for basically any other thing they do. (Also plz don't come back at this with the I-called-my-friend-in-England-and-he-said-it-was-raining sophistry)

Likewise the flying spaghetti monster argument is a good one despite the fact that it seems to have lost popularity and as I've stated earlier the idea that God himself requires an explanation.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be pointing out all of the logical scientific explanation of phenomena just that they should be delineated in the context of disobliging the invocation of Creationism/God/Deity rather than the erroneous position of disproving.

[Rores28]

And your claim that there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution is utterly wrong. Fossils alone provide plenty of proof that evolution is true, yet they comprise only a small portion of the proof that we do have for evolution.

Careful here with wording.. the scrutinizing/cherry-picking theist will note that you used the word proof. Philosophically the position of science is that it cannot prove any theory or hypotheses only disprove them and mount ever more evidence for a particular hypothesis. You may think this is stupid and it is, but I've seen this happen and it usually slows and kills the debate as it turns into something retarded.

[Rores28]

Yet again, you've saved me the trouble. Abstract thought is not immaterial.

Once again this is dismissive of the things that are going on with qualia.

[Ecurb]

No, if the argument is circular, it's not actually demonstrating anything because it is attempting to prove the premise it begins with. You can't prove something with itself, otherwise you are merely stating something as a tautology, which is not an argument at all.

Think back to high school geometry. All logical proofs are derived from a very limited number of initial postulates. They prove nothing that cannot be inferred from the postulates, although, of course, the process of inference can sometimes be a complicated.

Major premise: All men are mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

The conclusion is merely a restatement of the premises. It is only when ONE premise is the same as the conclusion that an argument is properly referred to as "circular".

Subjectivity has no true meaning beyond that of the individual, you can not determine the truth of any experience or existence beyond your own through subjective means.

Reading this sentence is like swimming upstream. Try as I might, I never seem to get anywhere. If subjectivity has no "true" meaning, does that mean it has a "false" meaining? What does "that" in "that of the individual" refer to? The "meaning" of the individual? Aren't all our preceptions "subjective" to some extent. Does Orphan mean that he cannot believe his own eyes? The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is never clear.

For those interested, here's a link to an article on "qualia" (mentioned by Rores28 in his illustrative post):

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

[BienvenuJDC]

Do you find this explanation satisfying?
The previous poster mentioned just one galaxy which happens to be the closest spiral galaxy to our milky way. How about the approx 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe? God had a strange sense of decoration it seems. And why did he put the Andomeda galaxy in a collision course with milky way i wonder.

I tend to respect peoples' beliefs although one thing i find difficult to come to terms with while talking to my theist friends is that they seem to have an answer for everything and the answer is always the same.

If there is a God who is able to create all these things, don't you think that He would have a better handle on the workings of the universe than what we THINK is going to happen? Just look how often our scientists totally screw up their calculations. We can't even decide if there is global warming or global cooling. What we THINK we know is controlled by what we are told. There is a media that is controlled by an elitist ruling class, and people think that they are God by the way that they believe whatever is printed in a newspaper. Atheists have their own gods, they just won't admit it.