Military Atheists: It's About Time!!

[Cap'n Cat]

Science 1, Bible 0.

You guys are easily impressed with yourselves.

[Cap'n Cat]

Science 1, Bible 0.

You guys are easily impressed with yourselves.

Hard not to be when you have an educated, arrested development lawyer on the ropes.

[JoltinJoe]

You guys are easily impressed with yourselves.

Hard not to be when you have an educated, arrested development lawyer on the ropes.

Irony.

[JohnStOnge]

I was going to come back to this thread and argue some but I can see you guys are doing fine without me.

[D1B]

I was going to come back to this thread and argue some but I can see you guys are doing fine without me.

YT stuck his teenage foot up your ass on Page 2, check it out you misanthrope.

[JohnStOnge]

I was going to come back to this thread and argue some but I can see you guys are doing fine without me.

YT stuck his teenage foot up your ass on Page 2, check it out you misanthrope.

Ok I'll look at what he wrote but I'm sure we'll be going in circles again.

[JohnStOnge]

Ok I read it and here we go again. Take this for instance:

By saying that altruism and such action does not a build a better world and more survivable environment (and thus in the interest of the individual) than one of which each individual fends for himself, is factually wrong and morally incorrect.

What is a better world? What are the criteria for that? Whatever one puts forth, the answer will be the same. If the atheist view is correct there is no such thing as"better." What is simply is. And there is nothing intrinsically moral about a more surviable environment or imoral about a less surviable one.

If you ask me if altruism enhances the survival and proliferation of our species I will say yes. But there is nothing intrinsically good or bad about the survival and proliferation of our species. It's just another species. Just a population of organisms composed of compunds. No more significant than rocks.

YT's whole edifice appears to be based on the idea that what's good for our species as a whole is "moral" while what's bad for our species is "imoral." But there's no basis for saying that maximizing the health and proliferation of our species is intrinsically good while doing something contrary to that is bad. And, as I've said in other threads, there are many, many scenarios in which someone can advance their own interests while damaging the interest of others. And there are many scenarios in which they can do that without suffering adverse consequences.

Really, you guys know this. I know you do. Yet you feel compelled to engage in futile arguments. And I wonder that about atheists too. Why is it that they feel compelled to argue that they can somehow construct a basis for innate morality in the absence of the "something else?"

Anyway, that's why at first I wasn't even going to bother any more. It's kind of like seeing an elephant in front of somebody and saying, "Look, there's an elephant in front of you." And they insist that it isn't there. At some point you have to just say, "Gee, that person just refuses to deal with the truth in this instance so there's no point in my continuing to try to get it to register with them."

[D1B]

YT stuck his teenage foot up your ass on Page 2, check it out you misanthrope.

Ok I'll look at what he wrote but I'm sure we'll be going in circles again.

Well, he's dealing with observable facts and science, while you have a hunch.

Your entire argument rests on the assumption that there's this powerful god character who is meting out rewards and punishments to humans for good and bad behavior.

The entirety of scientific knowledge, human history and logic categorically negate that position, unless your god is mother nature, like mine is, then you're right.

Ethical and moral behavior are rooted in biology.

[JohnStOnge]

Your entire argument rests on the assumption that there's this powerful god character who is meting out rewards and punishments to humans for good and bad behavior.

The entirety of scientific knowledge, human history and logic categorically negate that position, unless your god is mother nature, like mine is, then you're right.

Ethical and moral behavior are rooted in biology.

No, my argument does not rest on an assumption of the existence of a powerful god character. I am arguing from the premise that no such thing exists. That's my point. If that is the premise with respect to the existence of something else, then there is no innate morality.

I do think ethical and moral behavior are rooted in biology. But once we get to the point of understanding that and develop hyphotheses as to why such behavior evolved, we are free to contradict our biological tendencies. The fact that the evolution of altruistic behavior, for instance, promoted the success of our species to this point does not make altruistic behavior instrinsically "moral." And if you can advance your own interests by harming the interests of others while being confident that you will not suffer adverse consequences there is no reason not to do so.

Again, thats' proceding from the "no god or gods or whatever" premise.

[JohnStOnge]

The entirety of scientific knowledge, human history and logic categorically negate that position, unless your god is mother nature, like mine is, then you're right.

As I've said, I am an agnostic. But here is the difference between an agnostic and an atheist: There is no way you know the statement I quoted above to be true. Nor do I know it to be false. "Scientific knowledge" has not "negated" the idea of a "something else" that rewards and punishes. Nor has it confrimed it.

An agnostic understands that. An atheist doesn't.

[D1B]

If you ask me if altruism enhances the survival and proliferation of our species I will say yes. But there is nothing intrinsically good or bad about the survival and proliferation of our species. It's just another species. Just a population of organisms composed of compunds. No more significant than rocks.
"

John, you have a bleak outlook on the purpose of life.

That aside, elaborate on the "something else" part please.

[YoUDeeMan]

Your entire argument rests on the assumption that there's this powerful god character who is meting out rewards and punishments to humans for good and bad behavior.

The entirety of scientific knowledge, human history and logic categorically negate that position, unless your god is mother nature, like mine is, then you're right.

Ethical and moral behavior are rooted in biology.

No, my argument does not rest on an assumption of the existence of a powerful god character. I am arguing from the premise that no such thing exists. That's my point. If that is the premise with respect to the existence of something else, then there is no innate morality.

I do think ethical and moral behavior are rooted in biology. But once we get to the point of understanding that and develop hyphotheses as to why such behavior evolved, we are free to contradict our biological tendencies. The fact that the evolution of altruistic behavior, for instance, promoted the success of our species to this point does not make altruistic behavior instrinsically "moral." And if you can advance your own interests by harming the interests of others while being confident that you will not suffer adverse consequences there is no reason not to do so.

Again, thats' proceding from the "no god or gods or whatever" premise.

Perhaps we are not using the words the same way. Innate: inborn, natural. Interinsic: belonging naturally; essential.

You bring up isolated versions of people doing things that are good for themselves...but not for the whole. Is that your argument that we can't be naturally drawn to do good things for our species...that it takes a god or a third party to make things "right" or "wrong"?

[D1B]

Your entire argument rests on the assumption that there's this powerful god character who is meting out rewards and punishments to humans for good and bad behavior.

The entirety of scientific knowledge, human history and logic categorically negate that position, unless your god is mother nature, like mine is, then you're right.

Ethical and moral behavior are rooted in biology.

No, my argument does not rest on an assumption of the existence of a powerful god character. I am arguing from the premise that no such thing exists. That's my point. If that is the premise with respect to the existence of something else, then there is no innate morality.

I do think ethical and moral behavior are rooted in biology. But once we get to the point of understanding that and develop hyphotheses as to why such behavior evolved, we are free to contradict our biological tendencies. The fact that the evolution of altruistic behavior, for instance, promoted the success of our species to this point does not make altruistic behavior instrinsically "moral." And if you can advance your own interests by harming the interests of others while being confident that you will not suffer adverse consequences there is no reason not to do so.

Again, thats' proceding from the "no god or gods or whatever" premise.

Thanks, my bad.

I guess my only response is altruistic behavior, through evolution, is now innate in humans. It's part of who we are, genetically, as a species. This is evidenced by the fact that sociopaths don't last long in any society.

[kalm]

No, my argument does not rest on an assumption of the existence of a powerful god character. I am arguing from the premise that no such thing exists. That's my point. If that is the premise with respect to the existence of something else, then there is no innate morality.

I do think ethical and moral behavior are rooted in biology. But once we get to the point of understanding that and develop hyphotheses as to why such behavior evolved, we are free to contradict our biological tendencies. The fact that the evolution of altruistic behavior, for instance, promoted the success of our species to this point does not make altruistic behavior instrinsically "moral." And if you can advance your own interests by harming the interests of others while being confident that you will not suffer adverse consequences there is no reason not to do so.

Again, thats' proceding from the "no god or gods or whatever" premise.

Thanks, my bad.

I guess my only response is altruistic behavior, through evolution, is now innate in humans. It's part of who we are, genetically, as a species. This is evidenced by the fact that sociopaths don't last long in any society.

Not necessarily true. Sandufsky, Madoff, Lloyd Blankfein, - all been at it for a long time. We have a libertarian side to our culture that rewards greed, cheating, and the notion it's only illegal if you get caught. It praises a win at all cost attitude and these types can become quite good at manipulation and gathering power to the point where it becomes difficult to even accuse them. I think it was Ayn Rand who called it "rational self interest".

[D1B]

Thanks, my bad.

I guess my only response is altruistic behavior, through evolution, is now innate in humans. It's part of who we are, genetically, as a species. This is evidenced by the fact that sociopaths don't last long in any society.

Not necessarily true. Sandufsky, Madoff, Lloyd Blankfein, - all been at it for a long time. We have a libertarian side to our culture that rewards greed, cheating, and the notion it's only illegal if you get caught. It praises a win at all cost attitude and these types can become quite good at manipulation and gathering power to the point where it becomes difficult to even accuse them. I think it was Ayn Rand who called it "rational self interest".

Agree, but they're exceptions. A civil society could not be built upon the madoffs of the world.

Ayn Rand is right. Self interest, rational self interest,t is good for the whole. Everyone here is here because someone wanted to succeed. For every Bernie Madoff, there are millions of decent people who improve society through their self interest.

[kalm]

Not necessarily true. Sandufsky, Madoff, Lloyd Blankfein, - all been at it for a long time. We have a libertarian side to our culture that rewards greed, cheating, and the notion it's only illegal if you get caught. It praises a win at all cost attitude and these types can become quite good at manipulation and gathering power to the point where it becomes difficult to even accuse them. I think it was Ayn Rand who called it "rational self interest".

Agree, but they're exceptions. A civil society could not be built upon the madoffs of the world.

Ayn Rand is right. Self interest, rational self interest,t is good for the whole. Everyone here is here because someone wanted to succeed. For every Bernie Madoff, there are millions of decent people who improve society through their self interest.

Nothing wrong with rational self interest, but it's not something I would construct a philosophy, economy, or political party on.

[youngterrier]

Ok I read it and here we go again. Take this for instance:

By saying that altruism and such action does not a build a better world and more survivable environment (and thus in the interest of the individual) than one of which each individual fends for himself, is factually wrong and morally incorrect.

What is a better world? What are the criteria for that? Whatever one puts forth, the answer will be the same. If the atheist view is correct there is no such thing as"better." What is simply is. And there is nothing intrinsically moral about a more surviable environment or imoral about a less surviable one.

If you ask me if altruism enhances the survival and proliferation of our species I will say yes. But there is nothing intrinsically good or bad about the survival and proliferation of our species. It's just another species. Just a population of organisms composed of compunds. No more significant than rocks.

YT's whole edifice appears to be based on the idea that what's good for our species as a whole is "moral" while what's bad for our species is "imoral." But there's no basis for saying that maximizing the health and proliferation of our species is intrinsically good while doing something contrary to that is bad. And, as I've said in other threads, there are many, many scenarios in which someone can advance their own interests while damaging the interest of others. And there are many scenarios in which they can do that without suffering adverse consequences.

Really, you guys know this. I know you do. Yet you feel compelled to engage in futile arguments. And I wonder that about atheists too. Why is it that they feel compelled to argue that they can somehow construct a basis for innate morality in the absence of the "something else?"

Anyway, that's why at first I wasn't even going to bother any more. It's kind of like seeing an elephant in front of somebody and saying, "Look, there's an elephant in front of you." And they insist that it isn't there. At some point you have to just say, "Gee, that person just refuses to deal with the truth in this instance so there's no point in my continuing to try to get it to register with them."

Sigh. So much facepalm. You're right, the universe doesn't care. The universe is cold and emotionless. But that's not the point. The point is that you should care, just as anyone else, not because of the cosmological ramifications, but because of the personal ones.

As I said, it's proven fact that the survival and thriving ability increases exponentially with altruism and cooperation. Simultaneously, it is within the inherent interests of every creature to survive and thrive as an individuals. Once we realize that cooperation and altruism does in fact make one's life easier and more happy than heathenistic psychopathic pursuits, it's quite easy to understand and pursue cooperation and altruism.

In other words. Yes, you're right, the universe doesn't compare countries like the United States and Somalia and pass a judgment over what is "better" or "more moral," but as humans we can objectively say which is better for our well-being and thus it is more moral (what else would you define morality as?). Morality is a set of values with the intent of fulfilling happiness for all individuals and to minimize suffering. Individuals can have their own personal morality, but if it's incompatible with the group morality it won't fly. We're in the process worldwide of finding a morality that works for everyone. Everyone is sketchy with the details, but it's clear that we can find solidarity and continuity in believing murder, rape, and theft is wrong and detrimental to the survival of individuals and the group as a whole.

In other words, you're hungry right now. Your body wants food. Cosmologically, the universe doesn't care if you do or not eat, but as a living creature you care for your own well-being. You can say you don't care, but at the end of the day, you're getting food. If you don't and you have suicidal tendencies, chances are you aren't mentally healthy and need professional help. The same can be said about morality. The universe doesn't care, but as human beings we care for each other and ourselves and wish to survive. It doesn't matter if the universe doesn't care, because that's not going to stop us from trying. Do you have a sense of futility in your life doing anything because it will end? Do you cry watching good movies just because they'll end?

Morality may be an abstract concept just like math or science, but it has right and wrong answers. The equivalent of what you're saying is 2+2=4, but the universe doesn't care, that's just a concept. What's wrong with that, you may ask me? I mean really, scientifically the universe doesn't care about math just as it doesn't care about morality, but that doesn't mean the concept of morality is subjective in nature. As living rational creatures we can figure out the answers to reality whether they be mathematical or moral.

It's quite fucking retarded that I have to explain this. Do you think the universe cares that 2+2=4? Or that contradiction is wrong when making an argument? Where in the stars is it written?! With this reasoning you're concluding that nothing is relevant without it be physical. Abstract concepts like numbers, letters, and ideas exist and are relevant to our understanding of the universe and our survival and thriving ability. That is A FACT. I could also make the case that because the universe created man and man was able to create (in other words rationalize) these concepts, that in a way the universe created them.

If anything, humans do good because of selfishness, after selfishness they do things out of affection, after affection they do good things for others because they know that's how they would want to be treated and the world would be better off because of it. When I say better off, I'm not saying "cosmologically," I'm saying it would be better off for me to live in based off of preference. It all starts with selfishness, from selfishness we cooperate with others, and our understanding of how to thrive expands from that. Selfishness is the core, which as Darwinism teaches us, is the core of the survival of life and that's just a fact of life, which is objectively true.

[youngterrier]

Agree, but they're exceptions. A civil society could not be built upon the madoffs of the world.

Ayn Rand is right. Self interest, rational self interest,t is good for the whole. Everyone here is here because someone wanted to succeed. For every Bernie Madoff, there are millions of decent people who improve society through their self interest.

Nothing wrong with rational self interest, but it's not something I would construct a philosophy, economy, or political party on.

Rationality tells us that it's in our self interest to be kind to others

[youngterrier]

I could go on a rant on how Social Darwinist principles aren't really Social and more economic. Also such principles are incompatible with human nature and Darwinism.

So really, it's not Darwinism or Social....so why call it Social Darwinism?

[kalm]

Nothing wrong with rational self interest, but it's not something I would construct a philosophy, economy, or political party on.

Rationality tells us that it's in our self interest to be kind to others

Turn in your libertarian card immediately!

[youngterrier]

Rationality tells us that it's in our self interest to be kind to others

Turn in your libertarian card immediately!

I did that a long time ago......

[kalm]

Turn in your libertarian card immediately!

I did that a long time ago......

It's apparent YT and you've been doing some fine work lately.

[alvin kayak]

Just curious. Has it ever crossed your mind that YOU could be wrong?
Let's face it, from a high altitude view, there either is a God, or there isn't. You are betting on one side where the consequences are steep. We are betting on the other side where the consequences only affect our time on earth. But almost all believers find happiness in their faith so it's not like it's all work with no reward until we die.

Pascal's Wager is @#!*% so don't use it. What if you're wrong? What if Islam is the one true religion? Or Hinduism? Or any other religion?

There are plenty of religions that preach "believe what we believe or go to @#!*% ," otherwise there wouldn't be that much incentive to follow that religion. There's no objective evidence to suggest Christianity over any other religion, so you have just about as much of an idea as a non-believer, and there's just as much chance as you going to @#!*% as us, minus one God

If the religions of the world were God's multiple choice exam, you should expect to be wrong just given the sheer number of religions (Mormonism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism). The sheer number of them alone should give all people pause about their own confidence. I mean imagine if there were 7 cars to choose from, and you had to choose the best one, and the stakes were similarly high. I'd say that's a bit of a problem.

[Pwns]

As I said, it's proven fact that the survival and thriving ability increases exponentially with altruism and cooperation. Simultaneously, it is within the inherent interests of every creature to survive and thrive as an individuals. Once we realize that cooperation and altruism does in fact make one's life easier and more happy than heathenistic psychopathic pursuits, it's quite easy to understand and pursue cooperation and altruism.

"Altruism" is quite often not a good policy for any group of living things to follow. The animal kingdom is full of things that are considered barbaric by normal people - prolicide, cannibalism, intentional neglect of offspring, and other such things. And often those things CAN and usually ARE beneficial from an evolutionary perspective. Why should a mother invest energy caring for offspring that is not likely to have reproductive success? Why shouldn't a Lion kill his lionesses' cubs when it is obvious he is stronger than the other Lion he ran off who fathered those cubs and thus would be more likely to father cubs who would be more likely to survive and reproduce? Why should many female insects and arachnids spare a single male that inseminates them when not doing so could mean hundreds developing eggs in her could end up malnourished as well?

You can ask similar questions that relate to human affairs. Why should parents invest time and energy raising a down-syndrome kid who (1) isn't going to have reproductive success, (2) isn't going to grow up to become human capital that twenty-first century societies need, and (3) isn't going to live long enough to tend to his or her parents in their old age? Why should we allow anyone with double-digit IQ to reproduce? IQ scales certainly aren't perfect, but they have been shown to be positively correlated with achievement. There's no doubt we'd be better off if the average IQ on today's scale was 150, so why do we not say the end justifies the means? Why should you perform CPR on a stranger who needs it when whether or not that person will survive will have little effect on the performer or society at large? Why do we care about endangered species whos extinction would have minimal consequences for civilization?

If anything, humans do good because of selfishness, after selfishness they do things out of affection, after affection they do good things for others because they know that's how they would want to be treated and the world would be better off because of it. When I say better off, I'm not saying "cosmologically," I'm saying it would be better off for me to live in based off of preference. It all starts with selfishness, from selfishness we cooperate with others, and our understanding of how to thrive expands from that. Selfishness is the core, which as Darwinism teaches us, is the core of the survival of life and that's just a fact of life, which is objectively true.

Evolutionary psychology is a pseudoscience, YT. There is no way to empirically show that any human behavior pattern was essential to the preservation of human populations over the millenia. And there are plenty of behaviors that make absolutely no sense from an evolutionary perspective (see above).

[kalm]

As I said, it's proven fact that the survival and thriving ability increases exponentially with altruism and cooperation. Simultaneously, it is within the inherent interests of every creature to survive and thrive as an individuals. Once we realize that cooperation and altruism does in fact make one's life easier and more happy than heathenistic psychopathic pursuits, it's quite easy to understand and pursue cooperation and altruism.

"Altruism" is quite often not a good policy for any group of living things to follow. The animal kingdom is full of things that are considered barbaric by normal people - prolicide, cannibalism, intentional neglect of offspring, and other such things. And often those things CAN and usually ARE beneficial from an evolutionary perspective. Why should a mother invest energy caring for offspring that is not likely to have reproductive success? Why shouldn't a Lion kill his lionesses' cubs when it is obvious he is stronger than the other Lion he ran off who fathered those cubs and thus would be more likely to father cubs who would be more likely to survive and reproduce? Why should many female insects and arachnids spare a single male that inseminates them when not doing so could mean hundreds developing eggs in her could end up malnourished as well?

You can ask similar questions that relate to human affairs. Why should parents invest time and energy raising a down-syndrome kid who (1) isn't going to have reproductive success, (2) isn't going to grow up to become human capital that twenty-first century societies need, and (3) isn't going to live long enough to tend to his or her parents in their old age? Why should we allow anyone with double-digit IQ to reproduce? IQ scales certainly aren't perfect, but they have been shown to be positively correlated with achievement. There's no doubt we'd be better off if the average IQ on today's scale was 150, so why do we not say the end justifies the means? Why should you perform CPR on a stranger who needs it when whether or not that person will survive will have little effect on the performer or society at large? Why do we care about endangered species whos extinction would have minimal consequences for civilization?

If anything, humans do good because of selfishness, after selfishness they do things out of affection, after affection they do good things for others because they know that's how they would want to be treated and the world would be better off because of it. When I say better off, I'm not saying "cosmologically," I'm saying it would be better off for me to live in based off of preference. It all starts with selfishness, from selfishness we cooperate with others, and our understanding of how to thrive expands from that. Selfishness is the core, which as Darwinism teaches us, is the core of the survival of life and that's just a fact of life, which is objectively true.

Evolutionary psychology is a pseudoscience, YT. There is no way to empirically show that any human behavior pattern was essential to the preservation of human populations over the millenia. And there are plenty of behaviors that make absolutely no sense from an evolutionary perspective (see above).

Perhaps God means improvement?