Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

HHobo · 28-01-2013 5:53pm

Tommy,

Good call on the dialog quoting.

If you base most of your positions on these question on religious, deistic or theistic, grounds then we arrive at an agree to disagree scenario, which is fine. As you say, if I don't accept the premise of sin, I can't very well agree with a conclusion that requires it.

I don't object to the idea of morality being relationship based in general. If there is only one living entity it is quite hard for them to do anything immoral. Liekly not impossible but certainly pretty tough.

As to states and Nazis I would have liked to think that most people understand the difference between illegal and immoral. It should be noted also, that appeals to God have been an excuse for immorality in the past or as an excuse for behaviour in the Nuremberg sense. Things of the "I don't claim being gay is an abomination, God does" variety. Both the religious and non-religious are entirely capable of adopting ideologies that lead to all manner of atrocities. The distinction I would make is that while some ideologies happen to include atheism, or at least happened to be atheistic, atrocities are not committed because of athiesm. You will never hear someone say. "Atheism declares X, therefore Y is justified" or at least I have never encountered it. Mostly this is because atheism makes no positive claims. It has no content in it's own right. An atheist cannot appeal to atheism for moral justification, any moral or immoral thing has to be justified on it's own merits. It's religious counterpart "God declares X, therefore Y is justified" is pretty common.
Worship of the state (Nazis or North Korea perhaps) is as dangerous as the worship of a diety. The nazis managed a mixture of both and we know how that turned out!

In my opinion the worshipping of anything, and admitting to no possibility of error on it's part is basically a really bad idea, be it state, diety or fellow primate.

El_Duderino 09 · 30-01-2013 2:33pm

philologos wrote: »

Atheistic worldview != objective surely?

Ok. First please don't shout at me. I'm trying to see it objectively and I'm looking for help in finding reasons to consider sex from a moral point of view.

philologos wrote: »

I think the word "hangup" is just meaningless. It's not negatively affecting my life to understand that I should wait for marriage.

I think it is immoral for a number of reasons:
1) At the base of it all. God established an order for relationships and sexuality, God also as Creator knows a heck of a lot more about Creation than I do. I trust His providence in instituting marriage in the way that He did.

There's a number of other reasons.
2) Waiting until marriage means less spread of STD's. If one only sexually engaged with their spouse rather than any other person there would be less spread of STD's.

3) Waiting until marriage means that there is better provision for dealing with unplanned pregnancies should they arise.

4) By extension of 3, waiting until marriage means less abortions.

5) Marriages provide a safe context for both partners to express themselves sexually than in another relationship structure. Waiting until marriage allows the assurance that you know your spouse fully before engaging sexually with them. Waiting until marriage also means that there is a formal commitment in place before you express yourself sexually with your partner, it also gives ample time to discuss this prior to being married.

6) Marriages bind biological families together in a way that relationship structures other than marriage don't. The reality is marriages stay together longer, and marriages are the best way to provide children with both a mother and a father. Moreover families with married parents bind bloodlines together where other family structures don't."

I was defining 'hangups' as arbitrary restrictions on sex, not negatively impactful as you put it.

On the point of 'god's established order', I don't know which god's established order for relationships' you are referring to. Do you mean the polygamy (never polyandry) which god seems fine with in the old testament? I suspect you arbitrarily choose to ignore that and have settled on your own decision that monogamy is preferable for you. Feel free to make monogamous relationship agreements with your partner.

Good point on STIs. Some STIs are becoming antibiotic resistant which is a serious health concern. If the goal is to lower STI transmission then you will naturally be in favour of massive sex education which has proven so successful in trials in places such as America, Britain, Central and Eastern Europe.

No doubt you would support a culture of sex education for all children so we can make sure people make informed decisions about sex in the future and lower STI transmission. Sexual health is after all a very important part of a person's general health and sex life. Monogomy and informed decision making are a solution. I'm not sure where gods are involved in STI transmission rates or whether religious marriage provides different protection from STIs than non-religious marriage.

Points 3 & 4 about pregnancy are definitely worth consideration. I'm sure we are both concerned about unplanned pregnancy rates. Again I'm sure we are in agreement that one of the solutions to lead to lower rates of unplanned pregnancy and abortion is informed decision making.

Sex education and informed decision making helps put the 'planned' in 'planned pregnancy'. Un-informed decision making can help lead to the unplanned pregnancies you mention above.

I agree that committed relationships are a great place to raise children. I'm not sure where gods are involved in unplanned pregnancy rates or whether religious marriage provides different protection from unplanned pregnancy than non religious marriage.

Points 5 & 6 are fair arguments in favour of monogamy and postponing sex with a new partner. Indeed there are emotional aspects to sex which we have not discussed such as the bonding effect of oxytocin which is released during sex and particularly during orgasm (hence the idealisation of both partners climaxing simultaniously and experiencing a similar rush of hormones and emotion). Those emotions are not trivial and some people prefer to share them only with people they know and trust. Feel free to postpone sex until you are ready to engage in it.

However I still fail to see how two people who consent to engage in sex outside of your preferred religious context are behaving immorally. I also still see the arbitrary restrictions religions place on marriage to be 'hangups'. They are rules imposed by your club and you are free to abide by them. So far as I can see, sex is not necessarily a moral or immoral action. The fact that you choose to place restrictions on yourself in accordance with your religion does not impact the morality of sex. At least I don't think it does. Maybe i'm wrong. still haven't made up my mind though

I look forward to your reply

Delirium · 30-01-2013 2:42pm

@El_Duderino just so you know, != is shorthand for 'not equal to'. philo wasn't shouting at you

El_Duderino 09 · 30-01-2013 3:05pm

koth wrote: »

@El_Duderino just so you know, != is shorthand for 'not equal to'. philo wasn't shouting at you

I had no idea. Thanks Koth and apologies Phil.

Should I edit that out of the post?

Delirium · 30-01-2013 3:18pm

Up to yourself. Was a simple, and understandable, moment of confusion.

Although it would avoid a problem if philo responses to your post without reading the subsequent posts

philologos · 30-01-2013 3:29pm

koth wrote: »

@El_Duderino just so you know, != is shorthand for 'not equal to'. philo wasn't shouting at you

Apologies. It is a bit of a programming concept

HHobo · 30-01-2013 6:05pm

philologos wrote: »

Apologies. It is a bit of a programming concept

That's exactly what I was thinking when I read it...

Lines of C++ code popped into my head!

Ken bryan · 03-02-2013 11:03pm

The Hiroshima Bomb, Jesuit Priests, Fatima, and the Rosary .

These people were within 5 K of the Bomb and surrived With no medical issues .

Zombrex · 04-02-2013 10:35am

Ken bryan wrote: »

The Hiroshima Bomb, Jesuit Priests, Fatima, and the Rosary .

These people were within 5 K of the Bomb and surrived With no medical issues .

So .... Buddhism works?

Geomy · 05-02-2013 9:55am

Ken bryan wrote: »

The Hiroshima Bomb, Jesuit Priests, Fatima, and the Rosary .

These people were within 5 K of the Bomb and surrived With no medical issues .

So Buddhism works....

Zombrex can you explain this in layman's terms...

I'm kinda lost here.

PopePalpatine · 05-02-2013 12:02pm

Geomy wrote: »

So Buddhism works....

Zombrex can you explain this in layman's terms...

I'm kinda lost here.

The majority of Japanese (c. 70%) are Buddhists. Zombrex might be implying that it was the Buddha, not Jesus that saved these people.

Geomy · 05-02-2013 12:46pm

I was reading a book about Near Death Experiences and there was no Jesus in Buddhism experiences or no Buddha in Christians experiences,pagans meeting their God etc

It just goes to show that there's more to all this than Christianity being the bee all and end all.

Atheists had experiences of peace and tranquility or a higher being or powerful force etc

El_Duderino 09 · 05-02-2013 1:01pm

Geomy wrote: »

I was reading a book about Near Death Experiences and there was no Jesus in Buddhism experiences or no Buddha in Christians experiences,pagans meeting their God etc

It just goes to show that there's more to all this than Christianity being the bee all and end all.

Atheists had experiences of peace and tranquility or a higher being or powerful force etc

Was in an interesting read? It ought to be when you consider it's first hand accounts of people who's brains are in the process of shutting off. We know the brain fires in a seemingly random way as a person dies so having hallucinations is not really that unexpected. Trippy stuff though I'm sure.

Geomy · 05-02-2013 1:09pm

It was an interesting read alright

Better to go out that way than a way full of fear guilt and remorse isn't it.

The thing is most people who had nde's dropped a lot of their materialism and selfishness and lived a more spiritual,religious lifestyle rather than the selfish way of living.

El_Duderino 09 · 05-02-2013 1:11pm

Geomy wrote: »

It was an interesting read alright

Better to go out that way than a way full of fear guilt and remorse isn't it.

The thing is most people who had nde's dropped a lot of their materialism and selfishness and lived a more spiritual,religious lifestyle rather than the selfish way of living.

That is interesting. Similar to reports of astronauts who get to see the entire globe and get a sense of oneness of all people. They call it the overview effect. Wonder what causes it.

Geomy · 05-02-2013 1:12pm

Google Dr Sam Parnia I think he was the author of the book I read.

El_Duderino 09 · 05-02-2013 1:27pm

Geomy wrote: »

Google Dr Sam Parnia I think he was the author of the book I read.

That's fascinating. Went on the AWARE website and they hope to have results published in Sep or Oct this year. They do make sure to moderate expectation of finding evidence of actual out of body experiences rather than hallucinated ones but the research itself is fascinating.

In case anyone is curious AWARE is running clinical trials on cardiac patients in the UK to determine if near death experiences (NDEs) are really out of the body or contained in the mind. For example NDEs often site looking down from above, so to test this they hide pictures/objects which can only be seen from certain vantage points. So if people report that particular vantage point as part of an NDE they can see if they report seeing the object as well. If some people were to see any of the objects it would open up a whole new avenue of inquire.

Thanks Geomy

Zombrex · 05-02-2013 4:57pm

Geomy wrote: »

So Buddhism works....

Zombrex can you explain this in layman's terms...

I'm kinda lost here.

Laymans terms: some priests got lucky, must have been God

With ice cool logic like that it is amazing the Christian churches are falling apart in the western world

nagirrac · 05-02-2013 8:01pm

Geomy wrote: »

Google Dr Sam Parnia I think he was the author of the book I read.

Pim van Lommel, a Dutch cardiologist, has studied the NDE phenomenon more than anyone else I am aware of. It is interesting stuff, there is an interview with him on the Horizon Research Foundation website. Obviously there are many open questions that are difficult or perhaps impossible to reach unbiased conclusions on given our current understanding of consciousness. It will likely need a major breakthrough in neuroscientific research to explain these experiences.

If you can put aside your belief system, the questions that are posed by the mind brain problem are fascinating. One example is free will. If subjective consciousness is purely an epiphenomenon of the brain, then we are essentially robots and cannot have free will. Many neurological studies have shown that our brain processes signals and makes action decisions prior to our being consciously aware of them. This poses some interesting ethical questions given our whole legal system is based on the assumption of free will.

Geomy · 05-02-2013 11:56pm

I remember one day a guy told me when he is emotional he has no control of the first thought that comes into his head,but the next thought he can either act it out or accept it and decide its only a thought and not act out on it..

During the crusades the Christians were say it was Gods will to go to War,but yet their God had a commandment stating thou shall not kill...but they carried on killing in the name of God...
Because God willed it.

The Salem witch trials were the same,God willed those too..

Many people said God told them to do it :S

I'm not a religious man,I like reading about theology,mysticism,mindfulness,spirituality,atheism,I think by reading about all that can give me a better understanding of how and why were all different etc

I'm no hippy either,but its easier to have acceptance rather than be at conflict in these discussions...

HHobo · 07-02-2013 11:47am

Geomy wrote: »

I remember one day a guy told me when he is emotional he has no control of the first thought that comes into his head,but the next thought he can either act it out or accept it and decide its only a thought and not act out on it..

This sounds vaguely like a kind of loose stoicism. It makes no sense at all though. He can act it out or accept it and decide it is only a thought and not act on it. This very process involves innumerable uncontrolled thoughts.

Is he deciding to have the thought that he has decided to act or not?

While free will is almost certainly an illusion in the classic sense, it seems necessary to me that as a society we must continue under the assumption of free will.

Ironically, if we don't have it, it is vital that we pretend that we do as this is one of the best ways to influence the automatic decisions brains make.

It looks to me like it will be only a matter of a few years/decades before we can conclusively show that our conciousness, what we percieve as "I", is just a passenger on the ride controlled by the many non-conscious processes interacting in our brains. It would probably be a good idea to not publicise this idea too much. Aside from anything else, it is really depressing!

Geomy · 07-02-2013 1:34pm

It would probably be a good idea to not publicise this idea too much. Aside from anything else, it is really depressing!

Yeah then those Chemtrails and local water schemes with added antidepressants will become a reality :S

They will be treating us all for depression,schizophrenia,and obsessive compulsive disorder lol

nagirrac · 07-02-2013 6:08pm

HHobo wrote: »

It looks to me like it will be only a matter of a few years/decades before we can conclusively show that our conciousness, what we percieve as "I", is just a passenger on the ride controlled by the many non-conscious processes interacting in our brains. It would probably be a good idea to not publicise this idea too much. Aside from anything else, it is really depressing!

This is essentially the conclusion that the majority of research neuroscientists have reached. Consciousness as we normally experience it is just a by product of the activities of the brain, and thoughts are just fragments left over after the proceses involved. This has been shown in experiments where brain activity is monitored in response areas of the brain while the subject is presented with various images (violence, fear, etc) and the response in the relevant brain centers is I think of average 0.3 sec before we are aware of it consciously.

However, the involuntary aspect of consciousness appears to be only half the story. We have the ability to somehow focus on specific thoughts to achieve a negative or positive outcome. By focussing on negative thoughts we amplify these processes in the brain and as anyone who suffers for anxiety / OCD / depression knows it is this "stuck" behavior that makes the condition worse. Through mindfulness or meditation processes these conditions can be relieved and MRI studies have shown permanent changes in neural pathways over time i.e. focussed thought pattens changing neural pathways. This is the basis for the expanding treatment area called neuroplasticity and would suggest that conscious free will does exist but is only activated through deliberate mental exercises.

Morbert · 07-02-2013 6:31pm

nagirrac wrote: »

However, the involuntary aspect of consciousness appears to be only half the story. We have the ability to somehow focus on specific thoughts to achieve a negative or positive outcome. By focussing on negative thoughts we amplify these processes in the brain and as anyone who suffers for anxiety / OCD / depression knows it is this "stuck" behavior that makes the condition worse. Through mindfulness or meditation processes these conditions can be relieved and MRI studies have shown permanent changes in neural pathways over time i.e. focussed thought pattens changing neural pathways. This is the basis for the expanding treatment area called neuroplasticity and would suggest that conscious free will does exist but is only activated through deliberate mental exercises.

It would still ultimately be a response to stimulus. The ability to focus on thoughts, and neural plasticity, are sophisticated internal mechanism that help responses adapt to stimuli.

nagirrac · 07-02-2013 7:07pm

Morbert wrote: »

It would still ultimately be a response to stimulus. The ability to focus on thoughts, and neural plasticity, are sophisticated internal mechanism that help responses adapt to stimuli.

But the point is we have the choice to participate in conscious free will and influence outcomes. There appears no doubt our thoughts emerge from involuntary or unconscious processes, due to brain wiring involving genetics, environment, development, past experience,etc. However we can choose how to deal with thoughts which is what neuroplasticity is. We can choose to either allow ourselves be slaves to involuntary thoughts resulting in potentially negative outcomes or rewire our brains to choose a different outcome. In reality this is what all of learning is.

Morbert · 07-02-2013 7:27pm

nagirrac wrote: »

But the point is we have the choice to participate in conscious free will and influence outcomes. There appears no doubt our thoughts emerge from involuntary or unconscious processes, due to brain wiring involving genetics, environment, development, past experience,etc. However we can choose how to deal with thoughts which is what neuroplasticity is. We can choose to either allow ourselves be slaves to involuntary thoughts resulting in potentially negative outcomes or rewire our brains to choose a different outcome. In reality this is what all of learning is.

Neuroplasticity needs further qualification. Neuroplasticity is the brain's ability to change how action potentials propagate through the brain. It is what permits humans and other animals to adapt so extensively to changes in stimulus. But from a reductionists perspective, it is no more a deliberate arbitration or "choice" than a venus fly trap snapping shut when it senses prey. It would still ultimately be potassium ions (and others) flowing through the brain in complex patterns, based on the information the brain receives both from itself and the outside world through the senses.

As for whether or not we are slaves to our thoughts. That is becoming a challenging paradigm for our legal systems, because it opens questions about how developed our frontal lobes need to be in order to be considered responsible for our actions. Should someone who suffers from mild feotal alcohol syndrome, which can affect the ability to refrain from acting on impulse, be subject to the same punishments as other people?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinhibition

Geomy · 07-02-2013 7:55pm

nagirrac wrote: »

But the point is we have the choice to participate in conscious free will and influence outcomes. There appears no doubt our thoughts emerge from involuntary or unconscious processes, due to brain wiring involving genetics, environment, development, past experience,etc. However we can choose how to deal with thoughts which is what neuroplasticity is. We can choose to either allow ourselves be slaves to involuntary thoughts resulting in potentially negative outcomes or rewire our brains to choose a different outcome. In reality this is what all of learning is.

Is that where prayer and meditation comes into it...

God consciousness

nagirrac · 07-02-2013 8:21pm

Morbert wrote: »

Neuroplasticity needs further qualification. Neuroplasticity is the brain's ability to change how action potentials propagate through the brain. It is what permits humans and other animals to adapt so extensively to changes in stimulus. But from a reductionists perspective, it is no more a deliberate arbitration or "choice" than a venus fly trap snapping shut when it senses prey. It would still ultimately be potassium ions (and others) flowing through the brain in complex patterns, based on the information the brain receives both from itself and the outside world through the senses.

Neuroplasticity suggests however that reductionist thinking is wrong or at least incomplete. It suggests that the complex patterns of the brain can be adapted by a conscious decision. It is an emerging area so its unsound to make many conclusions, and it does appear that numerous mechanisms are involved. Just like regulation mechanisms in DNA, the more this area is studies the more complex it becomes. It was thought that synapses were simply strengthened by deliberate mental exercises such as meditation but recent studies show that new synapses are formed and new brain cells are formed. One has the "choice" to do such exercises or not, so in my opinion the "no free will" reductionist argument falls apart on this point. Just like one has the choice to go to college and learn or stay in bed and not learn.

Yes, there are people who are born with seemingly insurmountable challenges as in the example you gave, but most people have the ability to choose their outcomes consciously.

nagirrac · 07-02-2013 8:29pm

Geomy wrote: »

Is that where prayer and meditation comes into it...

God consciousness

Prayer is a basic form of meditation, like a mantra. When you examine the various mystical traditions there is really little difference between them at their core. All of them involve inner reflection such as meditation and prayer to achieve a higher level of consciousness. The differences are in religious dogma which come from a desire for power.

Geomy · 07-02-2013 10:14pm

nagirrac wrote: »

Prayer is a basic form of meditation, like a mantra. When you examine the various mystical traditions there is really little difference between them at their core. All of them involve inner reflection such as meditation and prayer to achieve a higher level of consciousness. The differences are in religious dogma which come from a desire for power.

Isn't prayer and meditation what many mystics,prophets,spiritual teachers and guru's tells us bring us closer to inner peace and closeness to universal consciousness or God

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments