If not theism then what?

[PaulSacramento]

Th equestionis, if not theisim ( a belief in God) then what?
Will, obviously we have 2:
1) the belief that we simply do not and may never know ( until we die of course) if there is a God.
2) The belief that there is NO God and that THIS, right NOW, is all there is.

While 1 does not necessarily lead to materialism, 2 most certainly does.
Materialism is the belief that the material world we are part of and observe is all there is.

But there is more to atheism and that is, perhaps, best summed up by Richard Dawkins:

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Richard Dawkins

Of course, this is also the same person that openly admits:

We are a very, very unusual species.
Richard Dawkins

I accept that there may be things far grander and more incomprehensible than we can possibly imagine.
Richard Dawkins

The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.
Richard Dawkins


The real issue in regards to a world view and dealing with the problems that many atheist put out ( emotional ones like the problem of suffering for example) is, IMO, this:

While for the Theist the problem if suffering is a valid one to debate and even anguish about since the Theist believes in a God, for the atheist that believes the universe is, to quote Mr Dawkins:
"no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference", there really is NO problem of suffering at all, or injustice or even right and wrong since, well...the universe does NOT exhibit those traits at all.

So, from where does the atheist, the logical atheist, then get his/her view about good or bad or suffering ?

[EssentialSacrifice]

Stephan Bullivant wrote in his Strange Notions:

This argument, made famous by Rene Descartes. It starts from the idea of God. But it does not claim that real being is part of the content of that idea, as the ontological argument does. Rather it seeks to show that only God himself could have caused this idea to arise in our minds.

We have ideas of many things.
These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things outside us.
One of the ideas we have is the idea of God—an infinite, all-perfect being.
This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and no effect can be greater than its cause.
Therefore, the idea must have been caused by something outside us which has nothing less than the qualities contained in the idea of God.
But only God himself has those qualities.
Therefore God himself must be the cause of the idea we have of him.
Therefore God exists.

I always like the way this works. It gives me hope that anyone at any age (even those filled with unbelief) could be struck with the hope for God, and not require a proof from the material that is so hard (not impossible) to garner.

[Proinsias]

While for the Theist the problem if suffering is a valid one to debate and even anguish about since the Theist believes in a God, for the atheist that believes the universe is, to quote Mr Dawkins:
"no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference", there really is NO problem of suffering at all, or injustice or even right and wrong since, well...the universe does NOT exhibit those traits at all.

So, from where does the atheist, the logical atheist, then get his/her view about good or bad or suffering ?

Suffering is something which Dawkins seems as keen to minimise as any commited theist, it's a problem in as much as we seek to minimise it in everyday life regardless of the theological views we hold. Theism itself, one god, does not bring up much in the way of issues of suffering, it's when God is believed to be good/loving/moral/merciful that the problem of suffering arises and becomes a debate. Job gets to the heart of the matter, a loving God may be betting on you with the Devil, making the ground no surer than Dawkins vision whilst on earth. Dawkins view accounts for suffering, it's pretty natural in that worldview but something we can act on to minimize, a benevolent creator god works best with the narrative of a fall which requires quite a leap imo.

I'm not sure point 1 or 2 leads to materialism, discarding theism does not necessarily lead to disgarding all gods, angels, daemons, life beyond death, spirits, ghosts, nde's or 4-th dimensional lizard men etc. Buddhism will grant gods, angels & whatever beyond the material takes your fancy, there just doesn't seem to be a lot of gain in reasoning or rationalising one god or that ze is good/moral/loving powerful source of all existence beyond the promises of what will happen after death.

If not theism, or if theism, let's work to reduce suffering here and now. Everybody cares about it and the debate is part of the process.

[PaulSacramento]

Theism itself, one god, does not bring up much in the way of issues of suffering, it's when God is believed to be good/loving/moral/merciful that the problem of suffering arises and becomes a debate. Job gets to the heart of the matter, a loving God may be betting on you with the Devil, making the ground no surer than Dawkins vision whilst on earth. Dawkins view accounts for suffering, it's pretty natural in that worldview but something we can act on to minimize, a benevolent creator god works best with the narrative of a fall which requires quite a leap imo.

Dawkins view accounts for suffering pretty much in the same way Job's does : It just is the way the world is.
And while Dawkins is correct to state that we can act to minimize it, he doesn't address WHY we should and it can be argued that from a evolutionary stand point, maybe we shouldn't.
His view does not address human evil either because, since there is no good or bad, just indifference, then there is no evil.
The theistic view point not only address human and natural evil AND claims a solution and WHY we need a solution, it also address WHY an Loving God may permit suffering ( so that much good can come out of it, so that humans can develop attributes that are better for the species - ie: compassion, etc).
See, the issue is not whether you or I agree with the Theistic explanstions, it is that there ARE explanations and they are reasonable and make sense under the context of theism,
Atheism and the view that the universe is indifferent and there is no good or bad, just survival and that the ultimate goal is the progression of the human gene, that world view does not "sympathize" with suffering or any "non-materialistic" view point such as moral good and bad.
Lets not forget that a "selfish gene" cares only about procreating into the next generation and cares not (indifference) how.

It's funny because, from an evolutionary biological viewpoint, things that so many atheist are in favour of ( homosexual marriages, abortion) are NOT in the best interest of the species or the individual and most certianly NOT in the bets interest of the "selfish gene".

[Audie]

Th equestionis, if not theisim ( a belief in God) then what?
Will, obviously we have 2:
1) the belief that we simply do not and may never know ( until we die of course) if there is a God.
2) The belief that there is NO God and that THIS, right NOW, is all there is.

While 1 does not necessarily lead to materialism, 2 most certainly does.
Materialism is the belief that the material world we are part of and observe is all there is.

But there is more to atheism and that is, perhaps, best summed up by Richard Dawkins:

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Richard Dawkins

Of course, this is also the same person that openly admits:

We are a very, very unusual species.
Richard Dawkins

I accept that there may be things far grander and more incomprehensible than we can possibly imagine.
Richard Dawkins

The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.
Richard Dawkins


The real issue in regards to a world view and dealing with the problems that many atheist put out ( emotional ones like the problem of suffering for example) is, IMO, this:

While for the Theist the problem if suffering is a valid one to debate and even anguish about since the Theist believes in a God, for the atheist that believes the universe is, to quote Mr Dawkins:
"no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference", there really is NO problem of suffering at all, or injustice or even right and wrong since, well...the universe does NOT exhibit those traits at all.

So, from where does the atheist, the logical atheist, then get his/her view about good or bad or suffering ?

I've not the least interest in what some dawkins has to say, but out of all that, I get two main ideas:

First an assertion:

While 1 does not necessarily lead to materialism, 2 most certainly does.
Materialism is the belief that the material world we are part of and observe is all there is.

Most certainly to you, perhaps, not to me. With considerations like that there may be ten or more dimensions, infinite universes with something generating them, dark matter and energy of the most mysterious nature, how could one say such a thing.

Whatever reality is about, saying "this is all there is" is pretty ridiculous. Same as it is to make any other claim to having a key to the ultimate secrets.

Then a question:

So, from where does the atheist, the logical atheist, then get his/her view about good or bad or suffering

"Views" is kinda vague, or multi layered.
Could you be more specific in what you are asking for?

[Audie]

Atheism and the view that the universe is indifferent and there is no good or bad, just survival and that the ultimate goal is the progression of the human gene, that world view does not "sympathize" with suffering or any "non-materialistic" view point such as moral good and bad.
Lets not forget that a "selfish gene" cares only about procreating into the next generation and cares not (indifference) how.

It's funny because, from an evolutionary biological viewpoint, things that so many atheist are in favour of ( homosexual marriages, abortion) are NOT in the best interest of the species or the individual and most certianly NOT in the bets interest of the "selfish gene".

Sometimes you do so well, then you go off the rails with something like the "atheist view....that there is no good or bad...ultimate goal is progression of human gene"

Evolution has no goas. No ultimate. And I certainly dont think there is no good or bad, nor do I know anyone who thinks that.

Next..
Mixing up atheism, evolution, and current social issues is off the rails too, but let me address a bit of it anyway:

I dont favour abortion, and I hope to goodness that the day will come when it is the rarest of the rare.. namely for situations such as I would say its an unfortunate necessity.

Like if I;'d gotten pregnant after an assault, like if mother and child will die otherwise, etc.

Your assertion about what is in the best interests of the individual or the society is just your assertion.

The "selfish gene" does not have "interests".

Sometimes the human mind or body go off the rails, (as you have done here)

Homosexual attraction is a fact, same as being born crosseyed is fact.

IF its genetic, then the "interests of the selfish gene" would have them not reproduce.

As for abortion, the way people are overpopulating the earth would kinda indicate that a whole lot more abortions would be in the long term best interests of the species.

[PaulSacramento]

Evolution has no goas. No ultimate. And I certainly dont think there is no good or bad, nor do I know anyone who thinks that.

You need to read more, you can start with Dawkins "the selfish gene".

You are arguing semantics.

As for the rest, you didn't understand what I wrote.

But this here, is quite correct from the atheist view point:

As for abortion, the way people are overpopulating the earth would kinda indicate that a whole lot more abortions would be in the long term best interests of the species.

Add to that killing of the mental incompetents, people that can't fend for themselves, any people that prove themselves lacking the ability to survive without the help of others ( un-fit in terms of nature and survival)

There are many things that are in the best interest of the species like:
Eliminating homosexualty.
Forced intercourse of women by "genetic superior males" to increase the chance of "better genes" in the future population ( consent is irrelevant since the universe is indifferent, only survival matters).
Euthanasia of old unproductive people.
I can go one of course and all that would be perfectly acceptable in a universe where there is no right or wrong and only indifference.

[PaulSacramento]

Homosexual attraction is a fact, same as being born crosseyed is fact.

Since being born crosseyed is a birth defect, a genetic mistake, are you insinuating that homosexuality ( if people are born that way) is a birth defect?
If you are just know that in the view of evolutionary biology you may be right.

[Audie]

Evolution has no goas. No ultimate. And I certainly dont think there is no good or bad, nor do I know anyone who thinks that.

You need to read more, you can start with Dawkins "the selfish gene".

You are arguing semantics.

As for the rest, you didn't understand what I wrote.

But this here, is quite correct from the atheist view point:

As for abortion, the way people are overpopulating the earth would kinda indicate that a whole lot more abortions would be in the long term best interests of the species.

Add to that killing of the mental incompetents, people that can't fend for themselves, any people that prove themselves lacking the ability to survive without the help of others ( un-fit in terms of nature and survival)

There are many things that are in the best interest of the species like:
Eliminating homosexualty.
Forced intercourse of women by "genetic superior males" to increase the chance of "better genes" in the future population ( consent is irrelevant since the universe is indifferent, only survival matters).
Euthanasia of old unproductive people.
I can go one of course and all that would be perfectly acceptable in a universe where there is no right or wrong and only indifference.

Im a bit surprised at you, generally you seem more thoughtful and less inclined to chant the mantras than this.

If you are sure you have all this correct, why did you even ask?

[PaulSacramento]

You don't seem to grasp the concept of this thread.
I am taking both theisim and atheism to their natural conclusions and asking:
If not Theism ( in regards to the issues of things like right and wrong, good and bad, suffering) then what?
I simply also point out that an atheist does NOT believe that anything other than the known universe exists and he/she believes that the universe is NOT guided, has no purpose, that it is indifferent and as such, there is a natural and logical conclusion to that.
This is not a "politically correct" thread, this is simply taking things to their logical conclusion.
I also note that you have NOT made any logical counter to these arguments BUT have made personal comments like:

Sometimes you do so well, then you go off the rails with something like the "atheist view...
Im a bit surprised at you, generally you seem more thoughtful and less inclined to chant the mantras than this

[Storyteller]

I may be missing a fundemental point here but if homosexuality is genetic then wouldn't it die out?

[PaulSacramento]

I may be missing a fundemental point here but if homosexuality is genetic then wouldn't it die out?

No, not really.
This is not the place for that discussion, suffice to say that there is no proof that people are born gay ( though I believe that they are).
There is no biological advantage to being gay, obviously, and it is most certainly seen as a biological disadvantage for the species for obvious reasons ( namely inability to procreate).
Not all "negative" genes are eliminated, look at cancer.
Natural selection can "choose" which random mutations are beneficial and "pass them on" but it doesn't seem to address the neutral or non-beneficial ones.

We have that there is a strong genetic component for it and the good and bad that comes with it:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... WdJh89VhBc

On the one hand, if sexual orientation is something people are born with, and cannot change even if they want to – akin to skin colour or handedness – this should overturn the notion that people choose to be gay and could equally well choose not to be. That knowledge would help rebut those who suggest that gayness is the result of a morally unacceptable decision, or a psychological disorder. It might also help people who struggle to understand or declare their own homosexuality.

On the other, some could try to redefine homosexuality as a biological abnormality. There is no way to change people's sexuality, but if key genes are found, it might be possible to detect homosexuality before birth, or to "cure" people by altering those genes. Even the threat of this could be used to persecute: consider the ugly histories of prenatal sex selection and of coerced and ineffectual "therapies" for homosexuals. It is no wonder that some activists see in such research the "seeds of genocide".

Of course, it may not be politically correct to state that ANY behaviour that deviate from the ideal norm for humans is deviant behaviour, but that is what it is.
It may not be politically correct to state that any trait that a person is born with that makes it difficult to procreate is a "birth defect", but biologically speaking that is what it is.

In short, homosexual activity acceptance is an EMOTIONAL issue, not a biological one.
Note that I say homosexual ACTIVITY and not homosexuals.

[PaulSacramento]

BY the way, I found this view on why the "gay gene" may persist:

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014 ... osexuality

Several genomic studies have suggested regions that might influence sexual orientation, but they have relied on small numbers of participants and have been challenged repeatedly. In 1993, Hamer, then at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, published the first of these studies, suggesting that a specific stretch of the X chromosome called Xq28 holds a gene or genes that predispose a man to being gay.

The finding made some evolutionary sense. An X-linked gene for homosexuality has long been proposed as a way to explain how the trait persists in the population even though gay men tend to have fewer offspring: The gene could increase fertility in females, who would have two “chances” to inherit it.

[Audie]

I may be missing a fundemental point here but if homosexuality is genetic then wouldn't it die out?

No, not really.
This is not the place for that discussion, suffice to say that there is no proof that people are born gay ( though I believe that they are).
There is no biological advantage to being gay, obviously, and it is most certainly seen as a biological disadvantage for the species for obvious reasons ( namely inability to procreate).
Not all "negative" genes are eliminated, look at cancer.
Natural selection can "choose" which random mutations are beneficial and "pass them on" but it doesn't seem to address the neutral or non-beneficial ones.

We have that there is a strong genetic component for it and the good and bad that comes with it:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... WdJh89VhBc

On the one hand, if sexual orientation is something people are born with, and cannot change even if they want to – akin to skin colour or handedness – this should overturn the notion that people choose to be gay and could equally well choose not to be. That knowledge would help rebut those who suggest that gayness is the result of a morally unacceptable decision, or a psychological disorder. It might also help people who struggle to understand or declare their own homosexuality.

On the other, some could try to redefine homosexuality as a biological abnormality. There is no way to change people's sexuality, but if key genes are found, it might be possible to detect homosexuality before birth, or to "cure" people by altering those genes. Even the threat of this could be used to persecute: consider the ugly histories of prenatal sex selection and of coerced and ineffectual "therapies" for homosexuals. It is no wonder that some activists see in such research the "seeds of genocide".

Of course, it may not be politically correct to state that ANY behaviour that deviate from the ideal norm for humans is deviant behaviour, but that is what it is.
It may not be politically correct to state that any trait that a person is born with that makes it difficult to procreate is a "birth defect", but biologically speaking that is what it is.

In short, homosexual activity acceptance is an EMOTIONAL issue, not a biological one.
Note that I say homosexual ACTIVITY and not homosexuals.

Ya sayin' you is a deviant????

[PaulSacramento]

What on earth are you talking about Audie?