Originally posted by twhiteheadReproduction seems like a fairly plausible purpose for why we are here. (As apposed to seeking oneness with God for example). A 'purpose from nature' if you like.
But why? Why that in particular?
[b]Personally, I think we find our own purpose in life.
Well 'purpose' kind of implies intent which requires intelligence which essentially makes it subjective. I guess a 'creator' or 'causer' does get some special place in purposes, but that doesn't negate the possibility of other purposes. So your parents may hav ...[text shortened]... ested that reproduction was a possible inherent purpose not assigned by some intelligent entity.[/b]
I equate purpose with reason. We find our own purpose for life, our own reason for living. I don't think that reason for existing (the thing that gets me out of bed in the morning) was preordained. My parents may have had their own reasons for having me, but it is down to me to find my place in the world, to establish what is important to me.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkPerhaps you may find that if you accept that you cannot know the answers to these questions your morals and your entire outlook on life might be better. You do realise that human morality does not arise from religion don't you?
Because what you believe about your origins will shape your worldview and ultimately affect your morals and your entire outlook on life. It will answer what I view as the 4 most important questions about life. Who am I? Where do I come from? What is the purpose of my existence? And what happens to me when I die?
Furthermore, what value do those answers of yours have, based as they are on belief? If your belief does not reflect your true origins, then are you answers not simply wrong?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI have a hypothesis that a significant factor in theists not understanding atheists and
Because what you believe about your origins will shape your worldview and ultimately affect your morals and your entire outlook on life. It will answer what I view as the 4 most important questions about life. Who am I? Where do I come from? What is the purpose of my existence? And what happens to me when I die?
atheism [specifically irreligious atheists] stems from exactly the error you have just made.
We all have foundational beliefs, things we in the normal course essentially just accept as true,
as being axiomatic... And these foundational beliefs are what we build our worldview upon.
To change one of these beliefs will typically radically change a persons outlook and other
beliefs. They are also typically some of the most personal and vehemently held beliefs we have.
Also included with these tends to be core beliefs about our identities, who we believe ourselves
to be. We tend to be protective of these and get upset when they get challenged, which is why
religion and politics generate such emotional and fierce battles.
We also have all kinds of lesser beliefs, beliefs that spring from those central core beliefs or
just beliefs about the world that exist in semi-isolation not really resting on anything else.
We tend to be less bothered about these, and they are consequently easier to change and
have less repercussions when this occurs.
You, as a religious theist, likely have your religion and it's foundational beliefs at the very core of
your worldview and your identity. Your religion contains the most fundamental beliefs [you believe]
that you have. And everything else flows from that or is interpreted in it's light.
This is common with many/most religious people and so when you are looking at other religious
people you look to their religious beliefs to get a feel for what their morality and worldview is.
Naturally you then try to do the same thing with non-religious atheists... And that is where you
come unstuck, because atheism is not a belief system. And is almost always the product of,
and not the foundation of, whatever belief system [or systems] that that person holds.
I will use myself as an example here because I know what my beliefs are, but be aware I am
speaking for my beliefs and not those of all other atheists.
My worldview, my foundational beliefs, are based on a belief in the power, virtue, and utility, of
rationality and scientific skepticism and in objective wellbeing based morality.
So a foundational belief for me might be something like "Only true beliefs are useful, and thus
I should believe as few false things and as many true things as possible".
Another might be something like "Scientific skepticism and methodology are the best known ways
of determining the truth or falsity of a claim."
Another might be something like "Morality is about the promotion of wellbeing amongst a society
of sentient beings [humans]".
Now, because we live in a world where we have no evidence for the existence of gods or afterlives or
anything supernatural, my foundational beliefs and worldview naturally lead to me not believing that
the supernatural exists, or that there are any gods, and thus I am a non-religious atheist.
But, I could equally imagine being in a universe where there is clear evidence for the supernatural
and/or gods etc, [A D&D universe where magic is common and gods show up and do stuff for example]
and holding the same worldview. Except that now I am a theist, because the evidence has led me to believe
that these gods exist [although I am still not religious because I don't worship any god or gods].
My worldview hasn't changed, I have the same foundational beliefs, but other non-foundational beliefs
are different.
Now you mention morality in particular, so I will too...
making clear that this is a major simplification because this is not the topic of this thread
As I said I believe in a "objective wellbeing based morality", which means that I believe in using
'wellbeing' [a term analogous to health] as the yardstick for objectively comparing different moral
systems/choices with the choices that produce the best outcomes [highest wellbeing] to determine
what the 'right' or most moral choice is. As such, it doesn't really matter if a god or gods exist or not.
While the humans [or other sentient species] are still the same, the same things will promote wellbeing
regardless.So it doesn't matter for my morality if I live in a universe with no god, the Christian god, or the
D&D universe with many gods.
Similarly it makes no difference to my morality if the universe started entirely naturally with no intelligent
intervention ~13.8 billion years ago and we evolved from primitive life forms over the last ~4.5 billion years
OR if we were created by a god is a splurge of supernatural creation 10,000 years ago, 6,000 years ago,
or last Thursday. Because the metric I believe in using for making moral determinations is unaffected by
such concerns.
Now for a person that believes in a morality that stems from a god and divine authority, whether you
continue to believe that that god exists absolutely has a barring on your moral compass.
However just because those issues are important for you, and many other religious theists, does not mean that
those issues are important for determining the morality of all others, especially non-religious atheists.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
I took quite some time and thought over my previous post, which deals directly with the
post I am replying to, politely and in detail. The kind of thing people keep saying we should
have more of.
So I am puzzled what about that post caused it to get thumbed down without comment or reason.
Hey ho.
twhitehead: And if you care counting Christians at 2 billion, this is going to come as another surprise: a large percentage of Christians don't believe in God.Oh dear. This piece of information was found at one of the links YOU yourself provided. 😞
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Lol link please
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkDo you understand what the terms "representative sample" and "statistically significant" mean?
Wow 3000 people were surveyed.
From the paper... https://www.dropbox.com/s/k8pm1s48uaqvvm3/NSRHO%20Report.pdf?dl=0
The survey was fielded by GfK using KnowledgePanel, a representative, address-based sample of American adults.
GfK is a respected survey firm that regularly provides services for government and academic research, and
KnowledgePanel is the only online, probability-based sample of U.S. adults. The initial survey was pre-tested in June of
2013 and fielded in June and July of 2013. The final sample size was 3,034. All analyses that appear in this report have
statistical weights applied so that they best represent U.S. adult population.
The paper has a full run-down of the methodology used.
The tl:dr version is that a representative sample of more than 3,000 people is more than sufficient to get results accurate
to +-3% or better.
Originally posted by googlefudgeWell, in one of my casual perusals through here, I just thumbed it up. Excellent analysis. Worth copying and quoting (with attribution, of course). I don't know why any theists wouldn't accept the analysis itself, for themselves, simply substituting what they see as justifiable core beliefs, say, and offering to buy the next round of beer. You have made no claim to any "absolute truth", nor that reliance on scientific skepticism is infallible, or the like.
I took quite some time and thought over my previous post, which deals directly with the
post I am replying to, politely and in detail. The kind of thing people keep saying we should
have more of.
So I am puzzled what about that post caused it to get thumbed down without comment or reason.
Hey ho.
You and I know one another well enough on here that I don't need to fill in the blanks. I have, I think, stricter criteria than you for claims to epistemological "gnosis". But you do not, as I have understood you, make a claim for an infallibilist "gnosis" either. And epistemology is not a settled domain.*
Really, I would think that that kind of analysis would advance the course of discourse (is there a pun there?), for all parties. Kudos.
___________________________________________
* Are you familiar with the American TV series "Monk"? The protagonist (Mr. Monk) was fond of saying: "I might be wrong . . . . but I don't think so." (It works better if you can see the actor, Tony Shalhoub, saying the line, with the perfect dramatic pause.)
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI can think of many 'fairly plausible' purposes. Why single out reproduction?
Reproduction seems like a fairly plausible purpose for why we are here. (As apposed to seeking oneness with God for example). A 'purpose from nature' if you like.
I equate purpose with reason. We find our own purpose for life, our own reason for living. I don't think that reason for existing (the thing that gets me out of bed in the morning) was preordained. My parents may have had their own reasons for having me, but it is down to me to find my place in the world, to establish what is important to me.
But that remains the reason or purpose why you get out of bed. It is not the reason or purpose why your wife wakes you up and makes you coffee and gets you out of bed. She assigns a different purpose for you. I guess your self assigned purpose is unique, but then you seemed quite happy to assign purpose to animals earlier without asking their opinion.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat other fairly plausible purposes do you have to offer? Present them here sir for me to dismantle.
I can think of many 'fairly plausible' purposes. Why single out reproduction?
[b]I equate purpose with reason. We find our own purpose for life, our own reason for living. I don't think that reason for existing (the thing that gets me out of bed in the morning) was preordained. My parents may have had their own reasons for having me, but it is down to ...[text shortened]... t then you seemed quite happy to assign purpose to animals earlier without asking their opinion.
(And I did ask the aardvark directly what his purpose was, but the fellow wasn't very forthcoming).
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeMy cat believes her purposes in life include going through any closed doors, eating and sleeping (yes I asked) . (she has a daughter but has since been spayed, so reproduction is no longer on the table).
What other fairly plausible purposes do you have to offer? Present them here sir for me to dismantle.
(And I did ask the aardvark directly what his purpose was, but the fellow wasn't very forthcoming).
Originally posted by twhiteheadA few days ago I was looking for a post of mine in my posting history and I noticed that every single one of my posts stretching back 5 pages (75 consecutive posts) had exactly one thumbs down regardless of thread, topic or content. The culprit is most likely someone who gets very agitated when it is suggested that thumbs up and down are no longer anonymous. 😉
There is a poster who thumbs down all posts by atheists possibly without even reading them.
The site should give thumb quotas to stop this sort of behaviour.