Do you wish there's a god?

[Acrobat]

Messy indeed... and that is why belief systems seem to have a regional component, at least, prior to easy worldwide travel.

I’m not merely speaking of our belief systems per se but our perceptions of reality itself, and I agree there are regional differences as well. There are likely to be differences between the perceptions of reality among Texans and New Yorkers, Chinese and Danes, etc….Our experiences of reality, shape our perceptions of reality. “The world of the happy man is a different one from that of the unhappy man”.

From my point of view, the "moral order" which you mentioned is simply related to general agreed upon behaviors among a social population that lead to the survival of that population. along with the betterment of the population as a whole. I'm using betterment here to mean, less suffering, easier access to food and mates, more protection against threats, etc…

No, they’re not generally agreed upon behavior, they are generally recognized perceptions. The elephant at the zoo doesn’t exist because we agree that it does, it exists, and as a result we generally recognize it at the zoo, unless of course we’re blind.

No one needs to tell you something is wrong to recognize that something is wrong, in fact even babies seem capable of making such recognization. Torturing innocents babies for fun isn’t wrong because you and I agree it’s wrong, anymore so than 1+1 =2, because we agree it equals 2. If we agree it equals 4, we would be wrong.

I'd wager that the drive to believe in the transcendent is also an evolved trait. One that is also quite recent and that can be why we have a large part of the global population that finds such belief baffling, the atheists.

Where as you say it’s an evolved trait, I say it’s an evolved recognition. As a result of our evolved features, we are capable of recognizing that there’s something transcendent to reality, much like we are able to recognize truth, and goodness, etc…

Why evolve such a drive towards belief? Perhaps, initially, to keep the mind from pondering questions for which society was not equipped to provide an answer, and keep the people dedicated to their "jobs", producing food and tools and practical stuff. Eventually, it would have taken over a majority of the population and then disbelief would have been selected against, as believers would find it easier to breed and survive. At some threshold in the ratio of believers/disbelievers, the disbelievers would have started to be banned from society, shunned, mocked.... barred from producing offspring. And belief got selected for even further.

You ever hear a fundie trying to resolve a blaring inconsistency or contradiction in the bible? They often make elaborate and cute arguments and defenses to claim it isn’t an inconsistency or contradiction. The sort that might get pats on the back from other fundies, but is hardly believe. They’re cute excuses, and nothing more.

It’s a cute counter argument you presented above, but hardly believable, to anyone other than those trying to deny such a religious reality. No body believes in transcendent reality, to keep others dedicated to their jobs, or to produce food, they believe it because they perceive it, or sense there’s something more to life than the sum of its parts. It’s a part of our conscious recognition of reality.

Ants and other animals are dedicated to their jobs, probably more so than humans in certain ways, and they need no such beliefs. Yet us human creatures, have all sorts of additional desires, that keeps us from not merely seeking for ways to survive, but in pursuit of something higher, something to live for.

You can make atheistic excuses to explain this way, but the motivation for you doing so, is a desire not to believe. When its much easier to believe based on such things, then not to believe.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think it's cute that you don't think that's one of those cute fundy excuses.

[pocaracas]

Messy indeed... and that is why belief systems seem to have a regional component, at least, prior to easy worldwide travel.

I’m not merely speaking of our belief systems per se but our perceptions of reality itself, and I agree there are regional differences as well. There are likely to be differences between the perceptions of reality among Texans and New Yorkers, Chinese and Danes, etc….Our experiences of reality, shape our perceptions of reality. “The world of the happy man is a different one from that of the unhappy man”.

From my point of view, the "moral order" which you mentioned is simply related to general agreed upon behaviors among a social population that lead to the survival of that population. along with the betterment of the population as a whole. I'm using betterment here to mean, less suffering, easier access to food and mates, more protection against threats, etc…

No, they’re not generally agreed upon behavior, they are generally recognized perceptions. The elephant at the zoo doesn’t exist because we agree that it does, it exists, and as a result we generally recognize it at the zoo, unless of course we’re blind.

No one needs to tell you something is wrong to recognize that something is wrong, in fact even babies seem capable of making such recognization. Torturing innocents babies for fun isn’t wrong because you and I agree it’s wrong, anymore so than 1+1 =2, because we agree it equals 2. If we agree it equals 4, we would be wrong.

Wut?!
What does morality have to do with math and the existence of an elephant?

I'd wager that the drive to believe in the transcendent is also an evolved trait. One that is also quite recent and that can be why we have a large part of the global population that finds such belief baffling, the atheists.

Where as you say it’s an evolved trait, I say it’s an evolved recognition. As a result of our evolved features, we are capable of recognizing that there’s something transcendent to reality, much like we are able to recognize truth, and goodness, etc…

Perhaps you're right.... perhaps I'm right. How can we discern which of us is right?

Why evolve such a drive towards belief? Perhaps, initially, to keep the mind from pondering questions for which society was not equipped to provide an answer, and keep the people dedicated to their "jobs", producing food and tools and practical stuff. Eventually, it would have taken over a majority of the population and then disbelief would have been selected against, as believers would find it easier to breed and survive. At some threshold in the ratio of believers/disbelievers, the disbelievers would have started to be banned from society, shunned, mocked.... barred from producing offspring. And belief got selected for even further.

You ever hear a fundie trying to resolve a blaring inconsistency or contradiction in the bible? They often make elaborate and cute arguments and defenses to claim it isn’t an inconsistency or contradiction. The sort that might get pats on the back from other fundies, but is hardly believe. They’re cute excuses, and nothing more.

It’s a cute counter argument you presented above, but hardly believable, to anyone other than those trying to deny such a religious reality. No body believes in transcendent reality, to keep others dedicated to their jobs, or to produce food, they believe it because they perceive it, or sense there’s something more to life than the sum of its parts. It’s a part of our conscious recognition of reality.

Ants and other animals are dedicated to their jobs, probably more so than humans in certain ways, and they need no such beliefs. Yet us human creatures, have all sorts of additional desires, that keeps us from not merely seeking for ways to survive, but in pursuit of something higher, something to live for.

You can make atheistic excuses to explain this way, but the motivation for you doing so, is a desire not to believe. When its much easier to believe based on such things, then not to believe.

No... it's not that belief originates to keep "others" doing their jobs... it's for the self. A mental shortcut so the self's curiosity doesn't take over and prevent the job from getting done. Today, we'd call those who do let their curiosities take over Scientists, but, back then, I guess no one couldn't afford that, under penalty of death by starvation.

Ants display no curiosity, so they're not a very apt comparison.
Perhaps a cat?


You say it's "a cute counter argument", but we have no real way of finding out how these things happened, so we have to go with our best guesses. And these best guesses are informed by our perception of the world. Yours include the possibility of what I'd describe as magic yielded by a single individual entity, while mine tries to come up with guesses that require only regular physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, etc... While all these are enough to account for all that we see, there's no reason why we should include the magical realm in our arsenal of guesses, is there?

[Acrobat]

Wut?!
What does morality have to do with math and the existence of an elephant?

Because like the answer to 1+1, and the existence of an elephant, it’s not a matter of agreement but a recognition of truth. The wrongness of torturing babies just for fun, is as objectively true as 1+1 =2, and the existence of an elephant at my local zoo.

Perhaps you're right.... perhaps I'm right. How can we discern which of us is right?

Well I’m of the view that I’m right, and as so when I counter those that are wrong, I tend to ask myself what motivates and sustains their false beliefs. There’s hardly a remotely convincing argument, or compelling one otherwise. The best I can do is try and understand those arguments, and indicate why they’re not particularly compelling, and perhaps not even for those who make them. That they’re more held for the sake of sustaining disbelief, and not because they’re anymore believable to those who hold them then me.

I don’t know how to convince you that you’re wrong, but I’m willing to explore the questions with you regardless.

You say it's "a cute counter argument", but we have no real way of finding out how these things happened, so we have to go with our best guesses. And these best guesses are informed by our perception of the world. Yours include the possibility of what I'd describe as magic yielded by a single individual entity, while mine tries to come up with guesses that require only regular physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, etc... While all these are enough to account for all that we see, there's no reason why we should include the magical realm in our arsenal of guesses, is there?

I don’t deny any physics, chemistry, or biology, i also don’t deny my fundamental experiences of reality. I may perceive reality through my mind, but those things i experience as external to myself, i recognize as aspects of reality.

I experience the wrongness of the holocaust, as external to myself, not as articulation of my feelings, or as the opinions of my society, but as part of objective reality, outside of my mind, just as the yellow of my wife’s dress, or the shape of the ball. I recognize it as an objective truth. If there’s a supposed objective reality absent of such moral elements, than that’s not a reality any of us know or can know.

Someone trying to convince me that objective morality does not exist, is like someone try to convince me that other minds outside of my own don’t exist, or that objective truth doesn’t exist.

You rely on physics, science, etc.. to make excuses to try and deny your own experiences of reality, not because those excuses actually make sense, or are true, but because they provide you just enough to sustain you disbelief, it’s driven by a desire not to believe, than anything else.

[The Grand Nudger]

Christ, we get it, we get it.  You can't imagine a morality that doesn't have something to do with gods.  So what, that's a you problem, always has been.  

Atheism is a single line item about god belief.  Repeat that in your own head, in your own time, until it sinks in.

[Catharsis]

Christ, we get it, we get it.  You can't imagine a morality that doesn't have something to do with gods.  So what, that's a you problem, always has been.  

Atheism is a single line item about god belief.  Repeat that in your own head, in your own time, until it sinks in.

You won't get far with that bad moral.

[The Valkyrie]

Christ, we get it, we get it.  You can't imagine a morality that doesn't have something to do with gods.  So what, that's a you problem, always has been.  

Atheism is a single line item about god belief.  Repeat that in your own head, in your own time, until it sinks in.

You won't get far with that bad moral.

Yet better morals than you imaginary friend and the Big Book of Bad Fables.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, I'm not raping children, stealing 20% of granny's social security check, defrauding the government, hating on teh gayz, gleefully funding the destruction of isreal to bring back the demi-god and end the world, or terrifying my peers into subservience with stories of hellfire and brimstone.

So, you know..on balance.....

[Catharsis]

You won't get far with that bad moral.

Yet better morals than you imaginary friend and the Big Book of Bad Fables.

Care to make any sense?

[The Grand Nudger]

This is an amusing part of religious belief in the context of social hegemony.  The faithful can't conceive of the contents of their beliefs as anything other than true and good.  It's baked in.  

"OMG you horrible filthy bad moraled atheists, how could you say or think such a thing, fuck..!  Now let me get back to what I was saying about salvation.  First, you torture a jew......."