View Full Version : Atheism, Evolution and Environmental conservation
Do atheists who believe in evolution also believe in environmental conservation?
Why?
lol, where do you get these ideas?
I've sure it varies hugely from person to person. But there is a positive correlation between environmentalism and education and between atheism and education, so there is probably some positive correlation between atheism and environmentalism.
I've sure it varies hugely from person to person. But there is a positive correlation between environmentalism and education and between atheism and education, so there is probably some positive correlation between atheism and environmentalism.
Yeah, but as atheists who believe in evolution, isn't environmental conservation redundant?
Yeah, but as atheists who believe in evolution, isn't environmental conservation redundant?
Evolution is not a moral code or guide for behavior, it's simply a theory about how different species came about. It doesn't say anything about whether or not a person should protect the environment.
Evolution is not a moral code or guide for behavior, it's simply a theory about how different species came about. It doesn't say anything about whether or not a person should protect the environment.
Yeah, so why should you protect the environment? And what does "protection" mean?
SAM,
.... also believe in environmental conservation?Not sure that "believe" is the correct phrase. One either supports or does not support the idea.
But what's the intent of your op?
I'm wondering how atheists define "conservation" in the light of evolution.
Yeah, so why should you protect the environment? And what does "protection" mean?
The main reasons why atheists might want to protect the environment would probably be because they realize that damage to the environment can negatively impact humans today and future human generations, and/or because they like the natural world/wild animals/etc and dont want to see it damaged by human activity.
By "protect" the environment one generally means not dumping poisons or disruptive materials into it, destroying ecosystems, killing off so many animals or plants that ecosystems are badly altered, etc. What else would it mean?
The main reasons why atheists might want to protect the environment would probably be because they realize that damage to the environment can negatively impact humans today and future human generations, and/or because they like the natural world/wild animals/etc and dont want to see it damaged by human activity.
By "protect" the environment one generally means not dumping poisons or disruptive materials into it, destroying ecosystems, killing off so many animals or plants that ecosystems are badly altered, etc. What else would it mean?
And so what? Its all natural isn't it? We're all just doing what comes naturally to us. Should we prevent mutations?
I'm wondering how atheists define "conservation" in the light of evolution.
You say that as if evolution implied that people shouldn't protect the environment. As was already pointed out, evolution does not have anything to do with how one should behave, any more than the theory of relativity tells you how to behave.
One can believe that different species arose because of gradual genetic variation from one generation to the next and still not like the idea of dumping poisons into the water/air/ground or wiping out species.
And so what? Its all natural isn't it? We're all just doing what comes naturally to us. Should we prevent mutations?
Most atheists are intelligent enough to realize that just because something is "natural" it doesn't mean that it's a good idea, has pleasant results, or is good for the long-term survival of the human race. Eye glasses, air conditioning, and automobiles are all "unnatural." So what?
Medicine*Woman
06-20-08, 02:37 PM
Do atheists who believe in evolution also believe in environmental conservation?
Why?
*************
M*W: As an atheist, I believe in evolution, because there is evidence from the fossil record that is good enough for me. (For christians: Don't bother replying to this. I don't want to discuss this topic with you).
I also believe in environmental conservation. Why would any atheist feel differently. We won't be here, but our descendants will, and they are very important to me. If we don't take care of our environment, nobody, no thing, will.
*************
M*W: As an atheist, I believe in evolution, because there is evidence from the fossil record that is good enough for me. (For christians: Don't bother replying to this. I don't want to discuss this topic with you).
I also believe in environmental conservation. Why would any atheist feel differently. We won't be here, but our descendants will, and they are very important to me. If we don't take care of our environment, nobody, no thing, will.
Take care of the environment? For what?
mis-t-highs
06-20-08, 02:41 PM
Should we prevent mutations?Well doesn't that depend on whether the mutation is the direct cause of evolution, or caused by mans effect on his environment. The latter being the only reason to prevent mutation, as they may not be conducive to the health of the planet, or the life there in.
Well doesn't that depend on whether the mutation is the direct cause of evolution, or caused by mans effect on his environment. The latter being the only reason to prevent mutation, as they may not be conducive to the health of the planet, or the life there in.
So any animal effect on the environment is not a part of evolution?
Michael
06-20-08, 02:42 PM
Do atheists who believe in evolution also believe in environmental conservation?
Why?Yes.
Evolution is a fact. We may not fully understand the process but that's the fun part huh?
I support environmental conservation because I enjoy the environment and I want future generations of cyborg-humanoids to have the same pleasure as me :)
So you want to manipulate the environment but others should not? Why?
Take care of the environment? For what?
Because, as was already explained, most atheists are smart enough to realize that damaging the environement is bad for the long-term survival of the human race. Also, many atheists simply like the natural world for its own sake and don't want to see it destroyed. This has already all been explained to you. Why do you keep acting like there's no conceivable reason why an atheist would care about the environemnt when you have already had several lists for you?
Or are you going suggest that the only conceivable reason a person could want to protect the environment is because a magic being in the sky told them to?
mis-t-highs
06-20-08, 02:45 PM
So any animal effect on the environment is not a part of evolution?What!, I think my statement was clear enough, I've no idea what yours means though.
Because, as was already explained, most atheists are smart enough to realize that damaging the environement is bad for the long-term survival of the human race.
And this is relevant to atheists because?
Michael
06-20-08, 02:45 PM
I know some Xians who do not believe in Evolution and also they think God will come and take us all some day soon and so damn the environment too.
And this is relevant to atheists because?
Its relevant because atheists, like all people, have an innate drive to preserve the things they like/care about. Most atheists like/care about the survival of the human species and the environment in general. Evolution predicts that a species that doesn't have a drive to preserve itself wouldn't last long, so it isn't surprising that most humans want the human species to continue to exist. Even if one doesn't care about the human race in general, most people still have an innate drive to not leave a f***** up world for their own children.
Its relevant because atheists, like all people, have an innate drive to preserve the things they like/care about. Most atheists like/care about the survival of the human species and the environment in general.
But they'll die and turn to dust, so why do they care what happens after they die?
But they'll die and turn to dust, so why do they care what happens after they die?
I guess atheists are just advanced enough to be motivated by things other than their own personal, selfish gains and pleasures. If you really only do anything or care about anything because its of some direct personal benefit to you, then in my opinion you're a pretty terrible human being. But, hey, good luck with your selfish existance. I hope some day you learn to care about something other than yourself.
I guess atheists are just advanced enough to be motivated by things other than their own personal, selfish gains and pleasures.
But its illogical. All change is evolution. All people are motivated to multiply and support themselves on resources. Why should anyone prevent them from doing so, because of what may or may not happen in the future? And if they care so much, why do they use any resources themselves?
But its illogical. All change is evolution. All people are motivated to multiply and support themselves on resources. Why should anyone prevent them from doing so, because of what may or may not happen in the future? And if they care so much, why do they use any resources themselves?
If you want an answer from the perspective of evolutionary biology, it would be that people are evolutionarily driven to ensure the survival of their own descendants (so that their genes will continue to be passed on). If damage to the environment threatens future generations of human life, then evolutionarily we would expect people to want to prevent that.
But on a more general note, it's disturbing to me that you consider it "illogical" for a person to care about anything other than himself. Is the concept of caring about something even though it isn't of direct benefit to you really so hard to understand? Is the fact that you don't want to be punished (either with real punishment in this life or magical punishment in the afterlife) really the only thing that's keeping you from going out to rape, pillage and litter?
Medicine*Woman
06-20-08, 03:06 PM
Take care of the environment? For what?
*************
M*W: For my children, grandchildren, great grandchildren in the generations to come. I owe them that. I will be dead and become part of the environment. In that respect, I'll still be with them, and by taking care of the environment, they would essentially be taking care of me then still. That's the way it works.
Simon Anders
06-20-08, 03:06 PM
Do atheists who believe in evolution also believe in environmental conservation?
Why?
Christianity is a poor mix with conservation.
1) this life and this world and not the real thing. the real thing is heaven (or hell) after death. So fucking up the environment is is not really a sin.
2) God gave humans dominion over nature. and while stewardship can be drawn out of this and some christians do, in general it has been taken as the natural world is property and it is ours to do with what we will.
Atheists coming out of Christianity (and closely related Judaism) therefore either continue these very sharp lines between the human and the natural and don't give a shit about the earth or they can rebel against it.
Christianity is a poor mix with conservation.
1) this life and this world and not the real thing. the real thing is heaven (or hell) after death. So fucking up the environment is is not really a sin.
2) God gave humans dominion over nature. and while stewardship can be drawn out of this and some christians do, in general it has been taken as the natural world is property and it is ours to do with what we will.
Atheists coming out of Christianity (and closely related Judaism) therefore either continue these very sharp lines between the human and the natural and don't give a shit about the earth or they can rebel against it.
What does Christianity have to do with atheism? Is there a competition?
*************
M*W: For my children, grandchildren, great grandchildren in the generations to come. I owe them that.
You'll be dead. You owe them nothing. They are just biological molecules who will either survive or not, depending on how well they adapt to their environment, about which you know nothing.
If you want an answer from the perspective of evolutionary biology, it would be that people are evolutionarily driven to ensure the survival of their own descendants (so that their genes will continue to be passed on). If damage to the environment threatens future generations of human life, then evolutionarily we would expect people to want to prevent that.
But on a more general note, it's disturbing to me that you consider it "illogical" for a person to care about anything other than himself. Is the concept of caring about something even though it isn't of direct benefit to you really so hard to understand? Is the fact that you don't want to be punished (either with real punishment in this life or magical punishment in the afterlife) really the only thing that's keeping you from going out to rape, pillage and litter?
What does punishment have to do with biology or atheism? Its a religious concept. Raping and pillaging is normal evolutionary behaviour. So is raping and pillaging the environment.
Simon Anders
06-20-08, 03:14 PM
But its illogical. All change is evolution. It is always a question with you SAM what the actual issue is in a thread. So I will keep my eyes open. But face value....
Atheists can and do care about the environment, at least some do. They see it as logical to care for future generations, those who inherit their genes, and many care directly about animals and ecosystems, etc. They consider themselves one species amongst many and while, like religious people, they tend to put humans way out in front of other species, if they can support both humans and nature - which really, one must, since without nature, no humans - they support both.
Atheists care about things, even with no God to tell them to. Though monotheists and atheists tend to care less and have a more detached relationship with nature than many pagans.
Monotheisms and atheists share transcendant deities. They are very closely connected paradigms.
Atheists can and do care about the environment, at least some do. They see it as logical to care for future generations, those who inherit their genes, and many care directly about animals and ecosystems, etc.
How is it logical to care for the unknown?
What if their future generations were like Stalin's army? Mass murderers or violent criminals?
Simon Anders
06-20-08, 03:20 PM
What does Christianity have to do with atheism? Is there a competition?
I think struggle would be a better word. Most of the atheists I know came out of either Christianity or Judaism. Seen from Christian perspectives they seem very different, not believing in God is the sticking point.
But seen from outside both they end up seeming very similar in relation to nature. Nature is other - however much lip service atheists may give about humans being just another species. Atheists tend to emphasize those qualities that do or they think do separate them from other animals and overvalue these. So very verbal mental abilities. Also math derived skills. Monotheists often value the, at least now, abstract transcendant deity and afterlife. So both these paradigms allow for an extremely utilitarian - and often short term - relationship with nature. Nature has little value in itself, certainly. Further civilization is good, nature is bad (both in ourselves and
out there is a commonly shared outlook).
What does punishment have to do with biology or atheism? Its a religious concept. Raping and pillaging is normal evolutionary behaviour. So is raping and pillaging the environment.
You didn’t seem to understand how an atheist could care about anyone/anything other than himself. You were asking, "Why not wreck the environment? It's no harm to you personally..." as if a person could only refrain from doing something if it was of direct harm to them. I was asking you if you would go out to rape, pillage and litter if you knew that there was no threat of punishment, and performing those acts wouldn't result in any harm to you. I assume that the answer is no. If you explore why you wouldn't do those things even if you could, perhaps you will gain some understanding of why an atheist wouldn't do them either.
You didn’t seem to understand how an atheist could care about anyone/anything other than himself. You were asking, "Why not wreck the environment? It's no harm to you personally..." as if a person could only refrain from doing something if it was of direct harm to them. I was asking you if you would go out to rape, pillage and litter if you knew that there was no threat of punishment, and performing those acts wouldn't result in any harm to you. I assume that the answer is no. If you explore why you wouldn't do those things even if you could, perhaps you will gain some understanding of why an atheist wouldn't do them either.
No I cannot understand how an atheist can care about the unknown. That requires faith.
Simon Anders
06-20-08, 03:27 PM
How is it logical to care for the unknown?
What if their future generations were like Stalin's army? Mass murderers or violent criminals?
People tend not to think their grandchildren will be brown shirts or crusader's, unless they want their grandchildren to be that.
But I don't want to overstate logic as a motivating factor or even as a claimed one. They do not lose romantic or emotional connections to things just because they lost belief in God. Many romanticize or feel fondness of a wide variety of species, for nature in general, for specific regions, or this or that lake or stream, for abstract things like diversity in nature and so on. And they hope that there will be a world left for the great great grandchildren.
But why don't you say it instead of waiting for us to so that you can they say it.
Spit it out woman. What is the hypocrisy you see? What makes it impossible for an atheist to care about the environment. It is clear that many do. At least it is clear to me since I know many who are. Why does this seem self-contradictory to you?
No I cannot understand how an atheist can care about the unknown. That requires faith.
What do you mean, "the unknown"? We know about the environment. And we like it. That's why we want to protect it. We also like the human race, and want it to continue. Although we don't know the specifics of what the human race might be like in the future, we still desire for it to continue. Why is this so difficult for you to graps?
What do you mean, "the unknown"? We know about the environment. And we like it. That's why we want to protect it. We also like the human race, and want it to continue. Why is this so difficult for you to graps?
Yeah, but you're talking about an unknown future and unknown descendents and unknown environment. Besides, everything is biology.
Yeah, but you're talking about an unknown future and unknown descendents and unknown environment.
So? I like the human race and I want it to continue. Maybe it's an evolutionarily-imposed biological drive. Maybe I just happen to think that humans are generally cool. Does it matter?
So? I like the human race and I want it to continue. Maybe it's an evolutionarily-imposed biological drive. Maybe I just happen to think that humans are generally cool. Does it matter?
No, it just does not go with the "give me evidence or give me death" mentality of atheists.
No, it just does not go with the "give me evidence or give me death" mentality of atheists.
What would I need evidence for? I know that I like the environment and the continued existence of the human race, because I'm the one experiencing the sensation of liking those things. Since it's a subjective internal experience, by definition the fact that I'm perceiving it means that I'm having it. I don't claim that there is any special magical reason why I like those things or that the fact that I like them proves anything, but my like for them motivates me to want to protect the environment. Now does that answer your question about why an atheist would want to protect the environment?
What would I need evidence for? I know that I like the environment and the continued existence of the human race, because I'm the one experiencing the sensation of liking those things. Since it's a subjective internal experience, by definition the fact that I'm perceiving it means that I'm having it.
Evidence that there will be life on earth in a 100 years for example.
Evidence that there will be life on earth in a 100 years for example.
I can't prove that there will be life on earth in 100 years, but based on the evidence - what we know about the current situation and the history of life on earth so far - it seems very likely. Atheists do not need absolute iron-clad proof before they hold an opinion, they generally just look at where th evidence is pointing. The evidence points to there being life in 100 years.
I can't prove that there will be life on earth in 100 years, but based on the evidence - what we know about the current situation and the history of life on earth so far - it seems very likely. Atheists do not need absolute iron-clad proof before they hold an opinion, they generally just look at where th evidence is pointing. The evidence points to there being life in 100 years.
What evidence?
What evidence? Like I said in my last post - the history of life on earth and an analysis of the current situation make it seem likely to me that there will be life on earth in 100 years. I do not particularly want to go into a discusion of why it seems likely to me that there will be life on earth in 100 years. Maybe you could take that to the Biology or General Science section if you want to debate it.
Like I said in my last post - the history of life on earth and an analysis of the current situation make it seem likely to me that there will be life on earth in 100 years. I do not particularly want to go into a discusion of why it seems likely to me that there will be life on earth in 100 years. Maybe you could take that to the Biology or General Science section if you want to debate it.
So you are basing it on the past? This is your evidence of the future?:rolleyes:
Medicine*Woman
06-20-08, 04:59 PM
What does Christianity have to do with atheism? Is there a competition?
*************
M*W: Interesting question, and there seems to be a competition, but not in the minds of atheists (and I cannot speak for all of them). Having been a christian, and knowing what they think and believe, there is a feeling an atheist might have as a sense of completion. We don't rely on something that is not there. The environment is there. We are here, and we're all going straight back into the environment. We won't come back in anyone else's body. We won't come back as a ghost. We simply become worm food, and the life cycle continues....
You'll be dead. You owe them nothing. They are just biological molecules who will either survive or not, depending on how well they adapt to their environment, about which you know nothing.
*************
M*W: I don't feel that at all. I feel I owe them everything, even though I'll be worm food long gone. In due time, I don't expect to even be remembered at all. Not to get into a discussion about genetic memory at this time. I also don't believe all atheists have a defeatist attitude of it all coming to an end. Essentially, I won't care then, but I still do now. Now is all I've got. Now is all you've got. We have to live our lives in the now. That is the most important concept.
As an atheist, I know that is all there is, but I don't have any fears of dying. When I became atheist, I realized I had nothing to fear at all.
*************
M*W: Interesting question, and there seems to be a competition, but not in the minds of atheists (and I cannot speak for all of them). Having been a christian, and knowing what they think and believe, there is a feeling an atheist might have as a sense of completion. We don't rely on something that is not there. The environment is there. We are here, and we're all going straight back into the environment. We won't come back in anyone else's body. We won't come back as a ghost. We simply become worm food, and the life cycle continues....
*************
M*W: I don't feel that at all. I feel I owe them everything, even though I'll be worm food long gone. In due time, I don't expect to even be remembered at all. Not to get into a discussion about genetic memory at this time. I also don't believe all atheists have a defeatist attitude of it all coming to an end. Essentially, I won't care then, but I still do now. Now is all I've got. Now is all you've got. We have to live our lives in the now. That is the most important concept.
As an atheist, I know that is all there is, but I don't have any fears of dying. When I became atheist, I realized I had nothing to fear at all.
Very nice, but I said nothing about fear, so its interesting you should briing it up.
However, it still does not explain to me why any atheist would care about what happens after he/she dies. Its not like they can predict the future.
Medicine*Woman
06-20-08, 05:06 PM
No I cannot understand how an atheist can care about the unknown. That requires faith.
*************
M*W: For me, I have faith in myself and in my family. That kind of faith goes on. I'm a survivor of death too many times to count. More recently a stroke and two heart attacks, and I'm still aggravating the theists online. I don't plan to stop it either.
wsionynw
06-20-08, 05:08 PM
But they'll die and turn to dust, so why do they care what happens after they die?
Maybe us atheists are just nice people ;)
I'm not particularly motivated to protect or conserve our environment for the long term since I don't expect human future will be biological and long term it will be off planet.
While I don't want to live in a trash can, and will make modest efforts to be responsible with my environment, I'm simply not inclined to take it further unless it is clear that my short term future will be dramatically and negatively impacted.
I'm not particularly motivated to protect or conserve our environment for the long term since I don't expect human future will be biological and long term it will be off planet.
While I don't want to live in a trash can, and will make modest efforts to be responsible with my environment, I'm simply not inclined to take it further unless it is clear that my short term future will be dramatically and negatively impacted.
That sounds about the right attitude.
wsionynw
06-20-08, 05:12 PM
No, it just does not go with the "give me evidence or give me death" mentality of atheists.
Not true. Humans are for the most part altruistic, be it towards other humans or animals and by extension the rest of the natural world. Just because we don't believe a god or gods created the universe on a creative whim that doesn't make us robots.
That sounds about the right attitude.Remember that I also expect to be around forever, just like theists.
Not true. Humans are for the most part altruistic, be it towards other humans or animals and by extension the rest of the natural world. Just because we don't believe a god or gods created the universe on a creative whim that doesn't make us robots.
I do hope you're not kidding. Humans are altruistic? With 4.5 pounds of food per person on the planet today and all our progress, 20,000 children (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty/death/) still die daily from trade related poverty. Half the species on the planet will be wiped out in a 100 years because we are so self centered.
Stepen Hawking No Sign Of Intelligent Life (http://www.videosift.com/video/No-Signs-of-Intelligent-life-on-Earth-Says-Stephen-Hawking)
Remember that I also expect to be around forever, just like theists.
Yeah, I remember your downloadable mind theory. Be careful what you wish for, they say, for you may get it. ;)
wsionynw
06-20-08, 05:17 PM
I do hope you're not kidding. Humans are altruistic? With 4.5 pounds of food per person on the planet today and all our progress, 20,000 children still die daily from trade related poverty.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty/death/
If I could click my fingers and save all those children then I would.
I think you missed my point. :rolleyes:
If I could click my fingers and save all those children then I would.
I think you missed my point. :rolleyes:
Sure you would. But you don't save even one of them. Thats my point. :)
Simon Anders
06-20-08, 05:20 PM
So you are basing it on the past? This is your evidence of the future?:rolleyes: I believe you work in nutrition or science related to it. Are you saying that you are interested in questions around this area because you have faith that there will be people to eat in the future? Does it really say this in the Koran? Or can you not imagine how an atheist might consider a relatively good statistical chance that there will be a world in 100 years? Do you makes plans for the future based solely on religious faith? I mean you could die tomorrow morning? In fact there is nothing in any religion that makes this impossible. Yet, I assume you occasionally make plans for events even weeks in advance. Is this because you are religious? Or can you possibly imagine that atheists might also make plans and take into account certain seemingly possible or likely futures? Many scientists will admit that a planet wide catastrophe is possible - say an asteroid collision - nevertheless they play the odds - to the best of their abilities - and make plans for saturday night, just like you do.
Neither of you can run to God or some supercomputer to know you or the planet will be here for sure.
I can't see where this means that atheists are hypocrites.
If they were claiming they knew for sure homo sapiens would be here, or someone could put forward a statistical analyis that showed the odds of homo sapians being wiped out are so high to spend energy, resources or concern on the future is illogical, well that would be a different case.
Simon Anders
06-20-08, 05:22 PM
That sounds about the right attitude. Right as in moral? Or do you mean 'that's what I would expect from an atheist and not more'?
I believe you work in nutrition or science related to it. Are you saying that you are interested in questions around this area because you have faith that there will be people to eat in the future? I study nutrition because the relationship between food and metabolism is fascinating to me.
Does it really say this in the Koran? Or can you not imagine how an atheist might consider a relatively good statistical chance that there will be a world in 100 years? Do you makes plans for the future based solely on religious faith? I mean you could die tomorrow morning? In fact there is nothing in any religion that makes this impossible. Yet, I assume you occasionally make plans for events even weeks in advance. Is this because you are religious? Or can you possibly imagine that atheists might also make plans and take into account certain seemingly possible or likely futures? Many scientists will admit that a planet wide catastrophe is possible - say an asteroid collision - nevertheless they play the odds - to the best of their abilities - and make plans for saturday night, just like you do.
Neither of you can run to God or some supercomputer to know you or the planet will be here for sure.
I can't see where this means that atheists are hypocrites.
If they were claiming they knew for sure homo sapiens would be here, or someone could put forward a statistical analyis that showed the odds of homo sapians being wiped out are so high to spend energy, resources or concern on the future is illogical, well that would be a different case.
We can discuss wbout theists elsewhere if you like. But most religions have rules about living.
Simon Anders
06-20-08, 05:34 PM
I study nutrition because the relationship between food and metabolism is fascinating to me. So an atheist cannot find nature fascinating and care about it and even while knowing he or she cannot know 100% whether it will be there in the future, opt to have it treated with care? Do you really think they are acting on faith rather than doing things given what they consider likely to happen or be in the future? Do you really think a cost benefit analysis - without faith in God - leaves them with no justification for thinking it probable there will be nature here in 100 years or that they think they are contributing to greater liklihood of that?
We can discuss wbout theists elsewhere if you like. But most religions have rules about living.Everyone has rules about living.
iceaura
06-20-08, 05:35 PM
Do atheists who believe in evolution also believe in environmental conservation?
Why? Fox News specializes in that kind of "question".
The answers are:
1) "Yes, in fact they are responsible for much of the political movement for it."
and
2) Depends on the person.
No I cannot understand how an atheist can care about the unknown. That requires faith. You don't understand how an atheist can have faith? You have been crippled in your ability to understand other human beings by a theistic upbringing and a trivialization of human nature. No one can help you in that lack of understanding, until you sincerely wish to learn.
So an atheist cannot find nature fascinating and care about it and even while knowing he or she cannot know 100% whether it will be there in the future, opt to have it treated with care? Do you really think they are acting on faith rather than doing things given what they consider likely to happen or be in the future? Do you really think a cost benefit analysis - without faith in God - leaves them with no justification for thinking it probable there will be nature here in 100 years or that they think they are contributing to greater liklihood of that?
Sure atheists can find nature fascinating, but clearly no one is leaving home to go live in the woods, so its not that fascinating, is it? Besides, it won't be fascinating after you're dead and unless you think the neanderthals had it good, conserving it for the future seems like a nonsequitor.
Everyone has rules about living.
No, not really
You don't understand how an atheist can have faith? You have been crippled in your ability to understand other human beings by a theistic upbringing and a trivialization of human nature. No one can help you in that lack of understanding, until you sincerely wish to learn.
I don't believe an atheist should have faith, thats against everything they believe in. :D
Right as in moral? Or do you mean 'that's what I would expect from an atheist and not more'?
Right as in consistent.
Do atheists who believe in evolution also believe in environmental conservation?
Why?
Conservation as in leaving nature the fuck alone ? Yes. Well I do.
Conservation as in leaving nature the fuck alone ? Yes. Well I do.
Do you live in the woods and eat nuts and berries? Are you naked?
Simon Anders
06-20-08, 05:47 PM
Sure atheists can find nature fascinating, but clearly no one is leaving home to go live in the woods, so its not that fascinating, is it? Besides, it won't be fascinating after you're dead and unless you think the neanderthals had it good, conserving it for the future seems like a nonsequitor.
You can't imagine they want something to live after they are dead that they care about? How strange.
No, not really You need to give me an example. Every person I have ever met could get upset when I broke this or that rule they had, including sociopaths.
Further I noticed that above you said religions have rules for living. So the reason you are for conservation of nature is because of the rules?
Do you live in the woods and eat nuts and berries? Are you naked?
How is that leaving nature alone ? Nothing would be left of the forest within months.
Simon Anders
06-20-08, 05:48 PM
Do you live in the woods and eat nuts and berries? Are you naked? You have a very limited idea about how one must relate to nature. Not that there's anything wrong with being naked and eating nuts in the woods. I've done that. I'm not an atheist, but I know at least one atheist who does that occasionally. She's a great kayaker. She has great concerns about nature in the arctic regions, does not believe in God and is unsure about the future. Nevertheless she tries to see to it that the region is and will continue to be as healthy as possible.
You can't imagine they want something to live after they are dead that they care about? How strange.
No its irrational.
You need to give me an example. Every person I have ever met could get upset when I broke this or that rule they had, including sociopaths.
Most people just follow rules that other people have set down for them. But atheists are different. They decide for themselves, hence they have no rules.
Further I noticed that above you said religions have rules for living. So the reason you are for conservation of nature is because of the rules?
Of course, we are brainwashed from birth into accepting laws and morals.
How is that leaving nature alone ? Nothing would be left of the forest within months.
You have a very limited idea about how one must relate to nature.
No I was just testing his conviction. Clearly he means leave nature alone, except for what he needs from it.
No its irrational.
Most people just follow rules that other people have set down for them. But atheists are different. They decide for themselves, hence they have no rules.
Of course, we are brainwashed from birth into accepting laws and morals.
No I was just testing his conviction. Clearly he means leave nature alone, except for what he needs from it.
Oh come on ! :bugeye:
No I was just testing his conviction. Clearly he means leave nature alone, except for what he needs from it.
No that's not what I want, it's what I need.
The main reasons why atheists might want to protect the environment would probably be because they realize that damage to the environment can negatively impact humans today and future human generations, and/or because they like the natural world/wild animals/etc and dont want to see it damaged by human activity.
By "protect" the environment one generally means not dumping poisons or disruptive materials into it, destroying ecosystems, killing off so many animals or plants that ecosystems are badly altered, etc. What else would it mean?
I would happily kill myself if I knew it would safe the natural world from the ongoing destruction it endures today and in the future.
Simon Anders
06-20-08, 06:02 PM
No its irrational. Funny, I thought if you didn't believe in God you still had feelings. I've always found the irrational/rational split very odd, both in the minds of many religious people and many non-religious people. I do believe that, for example, atheist parents love their children.
Most people just follow rules that other people have set down for them. But atheists are different. They decide for themselves, hence they have no rules. It has always seemed to me they decide on rules and how to come up with them just like everyone else does. But perhaps atheists in India are different. (I can play dumb for rhetoric's sake also)
Of course, we are brainwashed from birth into accepting laws and morals. which was meant as ironic. But it seemed implicit in your saying above that religions have rules for living which atheists do not. Is there another difference between the two groups? What is that difference that makes religious people care about nature other than the rules - and by the way I am not saying that is why religious people do care, those that do. Just pointing out that it seemed implicit in your response to me. If it is not simply following rules what is it and why could this also not be a motivation for atheists?
No I was just testing his conviction. Clearly he means leave nature alone, except for what he needs from it. Something many people seem to believe, but a lot comes down on that word 'need'.
Funny, I thought if you didn't believe in God you still had feelings. I've always found the irrational/rational split very odd, both in the minds of many religious people and many non-religious people. I do believe that, for example, atheist parents love their children.
Thats rational, they carry their genes, which are important to atheists. But only till they're dead of course. After that its all in the realm of fantasy.
It has always seemed to me they decide on rules and how to come up with them just like everyone else does. But perhaps atheists in India are different. (I can play dumb for rhetoric's sake also)
Atheists in India just follow the rules of theism. Like many people do stuff they don't really believe in.
which was meant as ironic. But it seemed implicit in your saying above that religions have rules for living which atheists do not. Is there another difference between the two groups? What is that difference that makes religious people care about nature other than the rules - and by the way I am not saying that is why religious people do care, those that do. Just pointing out that it seemed implicit in your response to me. If it is not simply following rules what is it and why could this also not be a motivation for atheists?
Its irrational. Theists are irrational, atheists are not.
Something many people seem to believe, but a lot comes down on that word 'need'.
Yeah, but if I say I am against pedophilia but I abuse a child because I "need" it, its pretty ridiculous, don't you think?
Yeah, but if I say I am against pedophilia but I abuse a child because I "need" it, its pretty ridiculous, don't you think?
Really ? Is it ?
If you NEED it you can still think it's wrong. Or do you not think so ?
Really ? Is it ?
If you NEED it you can still think it's wrong. Or do you not think so ?
Like eating cake when you're diabetic? But then you don't go around making a big deal about cakes do you?
Like eating cake when you're diabetic? But then you don't go around making a big deal about cakes do you?
NEED.
I NEED food to live, don't you ?
But at the same time I see that the sheer number of people NEEDING food does to the environment.
NEED.
I NEED food to live, don't you ?
But at the same time I see that the sheer number of people NEEDING food does to the environment.
Well then its irrational to boycott food if you need it. Just because you have diabetes, why should everyone else not eat cake?
And hey if a lot of people needing food is damaging to the environment, you have it in your power to reduce that number by one.
Well then its irrational to boycott food if you need it. Just because you have diabetes, why should everyone else not eat cake?
Who said anything about boycotting food ?
Simon Anders
06-20-08, 06:34 PM
Its irrational. Theists are irrational, atheists are not. Oh, is this your point. Atheists have claimed that everything they do is rational and they have no axioms they assume and build from. You've been talking to the wrong atheists, but I get where you are coming from.
Yeah, but if I say I am against pedophilia but I abuse a child because I "need" it, its pretty ridiculous, don't you think?Yeah, I notice how much both atheists and religious people make kids sacred and then treat them like shit either daily or when push comes to shove.
I notice that the Koran indicates that reducing animals suffering is a good thing. Further reduction of animals suffering could take place by not eating so much meat. Ah, well. (not that this hypocrisy is limited to Muslims, or the religious. It is very widespread.)
Everybody has values that contexts allow them to break. There are very very few people who are consistant and those who are are usually intolerable and spread a dark clouds of unpleasance in every interaction.
Animals don't suffer when we eat them. They're already dead (unlike plants, which are consumed live or after boiling in oil, even infants). Besides, they are apparently atheist, according to Enmos, so it makes sense that theists would eat them. Thats evolution. Survival of teh fattest.
iceaura
06-20-08, 06:50 PM
I don't believe an atheist should have faith, thats against everything they believe in. But they do, and it doesn't seem to bother them. So there's something going on you don't understand.
You have a basic problem: the world does not match your theoretical expectations. In the US, for example, the more religious and theistic the person the less likely they are to support environmental conservation, and vice versa - perhaps the most famous example was Reagan's Secretary of the Interior James Watt, but there is and has been no shortage of examples in positions of authority, now and in the past.
There is a faction of theists that is trying to promote a "stewardship" outlook, but they are having an uphill struggle.
The large influx of theists that has altered the demographics of so much of the most vulnerable ecological zones has set things back a bit - it takes a generation or two at least to get people from a theistic tradition up to speed, so to speak.
And so the environmental movement in the US has been largely atheistic and (to a lesser degree) areligious - unless you count that "nature mysticism" you find so far inferior to the great wisdom of the institutionalized monotheisms.
Simon Anders
06-20-08, 06:52 PM
Animals don't suffer when we eat them. They're already dead (unlike plants, which are consumed live or after boiling in oil, even infants). Besides, they are apparently atheist, according to Enmos, so it makes sense that theists would eat them. Thats evolution. Survival of teh fattest.
sigh. I guess we all deserve your style regardless...
maybe another day...I am sure somebody deserves your approach, but I don't....
But they do, and it doesn't seem to bother them. So there's something going on you don't understand.
You have a basic problem: the world does not match your theoretical expectations. In the US, for example, the more religious and theistic the person the less likely they are to support environmental conservation, and vice versa - perhaps the most famous example was Reagan's Secretary of the Interior James Watt, but there is and has been no shortage of examples in positions of authority, now and in the past.
There is a faction of theists that is trying to promote a "stewardship" outlook, but they are having an uphill struggle.
The large influx of theists that has altered the demographics of so much of the most vulnerable ecological zones has set things back a bit - it takes a generation or two at least to get people from a theistic tradition up to speed, so to speak.
And so the environmental movement in the US has been largely atheistic and (to a lesser degree) areligious - unless you count that "nature mysticism" you find so far inferior to the great wisdom of the institutionalized monotheisms.
So IOW, theists in the US are following the evolutionary process while atheists are fantasising about future generations? Interesting.
And the main point I was making?
More irrationalities, obviously.
Simon Anders
06-20-08, 06:58 PM
More irrationalities, obviously. Good argument. I now believe that atheists either actually believe in God or don't care about nature. I gotta tell my dad. I love when he looks confused by things I say.
Good argument. I now believe that atheists either actually believe in God or don't care about nature. I gotta tell my dad. I love when he looks confused by things I say.
I'll think of some more.:cool:
Simon Anders
06-20-08, 07:03 PM
I'll think of some more.:cool:Some more things I say? Wow.
iceaura
06-20-08, 07:14 PM
So IOW, theists in the US are following the evolutionary process while atheists are fantasising about future generations? No.
Keep trying, though. You have to labor like a mosquito biting at an iron bar, the pros say.
No.
Keep trying, though. You have to labor like a mosquito biting at an iron bar, the pros say.
So atheists who support the environment are not thinking about an unknown future while the religious make hay?
iceaura
06-20-08, 07:29 PM
So atheists who support the environment are not thinking about an unknown future while the religious make hay? Nope. Closer, though.
Simon Anders
06-20-08, 07:55 PM
Nope. Closer, though. I like this response. I doubt it will produce a fuller reply on SAM's part, but the lack of clarification is the perfect response to conclusions that are implied to be obvious.
I am learning from everyone on this thread. I am not sure it is anything valuable, but who knows, verbal fencing might be good training for other, more productive thought.
What about protection of endangered species? If a species dies out, it's evolution. So shouldn't atheists be opposed to the protection of near-extinct animals?
iceaura
06-20-08, 08:01 PM
What about protection of endangered species? If a species dies out, it's evolution. So shouldn't atheists be opposed to the protection of near-extinct animals? But they aren't. So - - -
Simon Anders
06-20-08, 08:05 PM
What about protection of endangered species? If a species dies out, it's evolution. So shouldn't atheists be opposed to the protection of near-extinct animals? It's evolution either way. So they get to choose what they want.
Medicine*Woman
06-20-08, 09:15 PM
Most people just follow rules that other people have set down for them. But atheists are different. They decide for themselves, hence they have no rules.
*************
M*W: No, that is not true. Just because we're atheist doesn't mean we're not law abiding . Rules are needed for an orderly society. I don't think any atheist would deny this. It's the logical truth. It's deities and their mythologies that we don't believe, not the the normal and customary rules of our respective societies.
Of course, we are brainwashed from birth into accepting laws and morals.
*************
M*W: Again, this is conducive to an orderly society. I don't think of it as being "brainwashed" so much as a progressive learning process. We tell a three-year-old to look both ways when crossing the street. We tell that same 16 year-old-kid not to speed when he's driving a car. I really don't see a problem with teaching children about the laws of their society. I do have a problem teaching them about gods that really don't exist. It's called "lying."
scorpius
06-20-08, 10:40 PM
So IOW, theists in the US are following the evolutionary process while atheists are fantasising about future generations?
not exactly,
xians are trying to destroy the world little bit faster as they want to bring about their unfulfilled prophecy of the End Days.
plus their belief in going to haven no matter what,as long as they pray have fate does NOT give them any incentive to make the world a better place,
or be a better person.. come to think of it...SAD aint it?
atheists on the other hand CARE for future generations,as we know this world is all we have
so as you can see; atheists morality beats your religious nuts again!
now give me one good reason why shouldnt we eliminate all the religious loonies who are danger to us, from this world?
scorpius
06-20-08, 10:46 PM
..atheists are different. They decide for themselves, hence they have no rules.
.
seriously... what are you; a TROLL or a mental midget?
James R
06-21-08, 12:41 AM
SAM:
Do atheists who believe in evolution also believe in environmental conservation?
Why do you persist in this delusion that all atheists share views on every other subject as well as the existence of gods?
Some atheists are conservationists; some aren't. Belief in gods is irrelevant to the issue, as far as I can see.
Yeah, but as atheists who believe in evolution, isn't environmental conservation redundant?
What a strange thing to say. Evolution will occur with or without environmental conservation. These are another two subjects that are unconnected.
I'm wondering how atheists define "conservation" in the light of evolution.
Conservation (n.): The act of preserving, guarding, or protecting; the keeping (of a thing) in a safe or entire state; preservation.
The definition does not mention evolution.
But its illogical. All change is evolution. All people are motivated to multiply and support themselves on resources. Why should anyone prevent them from doing so, because of what may or may not happen in the future? And if they care so much, why do they use any resources themselves?
Nobody can live without using resources.
If you're asking why an exploding human population is a bad idea, the simple answer is that too many humans will mean, at the very least, great suffering for many - both humans and other lifeforms.
Animals don't suffer when we eat them. They're already dead (unlike plants, which are consumed live or after boiling in oil, even infants).
Have you made the connection that before we eat an animal, we kill it?
Simon Anders
06-21-08, 12:49 AM
SAM:
Why do you persist in this delusion that all atheists share views on every other subject as well as the existence of gods?
She doesn't. She is trying to say that the way atheists criticize theists - that they have irrational faith based beliefs - can be applied to their actions in relation to an unknowable future as seen in their concern about the environment. Those that have this latter. So the issue isn't can an atheist be a conservationist. She knows this is possible.
She's trolling, is what she's doing. Seriously, there is no validity to anything she says.
It's evolution either way. So they get to choose what they want.
Yup. That is it. Everything is evolution. War, holocaust, starvation, extinction. Its all natural. Conservationism is also evolution. :p
She's trolling, is what she's doing. Seriously, there is no validity to anything she says.
As an atheist, you've stopped thinking at a certain point. The rest requires a broader perspective than you've decided to have.:)
so as you can see; atheists morality beats your religious nuts again!
now give me one good reason why shouldnt we eliminate all the religious loonies who are danger to us, from this world?
I suppose this is an apt demonstration of atheist "morality". At least, from historical evidence.
James R
06-21-08, 04:18 AM
She doesn't. She is trying to say that the way atheists criticize theists - that they have irrational faith based beliefs - can be applied to their actions in relation to an unknowable future as seen in their concern about the environment.
On the contrary, the environmental future is quite well known. Haven't you heard all the fuss about climate change, environmental degradation, pollution, etc.? Taking action to address issues raised by scientific evidence is not a faith-based approach. It's simple common sense.
On the contrary, the environmental future is quite well known. Haven't you heard all the fuss about climate change, environmental degradation, pollution, etc.? Taking action to address issues raised by scientific evidence is not a faith-based approach. It's simple common sense.
So you can accurately predict what the future is?
Animals don't suffer when we eat them. They're already dead (unlike plants, which are consumed live or after boiling in oil, even infants). Besides, they are apparently atheist, according to Enmos, so it makes sense that theists would eat them. Thats evolution. Survival of teh fattest.
Humans don't suffer either when we eat them. I expect you will be eating atheists tonight ?
What about protection of endangered species? If a species dies out, it's evolution. So shouldn't atheists be opposed to the protection of near-extinct animals?
Not if they are endangered because of humans.
Theists are Gods gift to the universe so how could they be in the wrong ? :rolleues:
Theists will argue that if a species dies out because of humans that it is Gods will, and therefore good. That stance makes me sick.
So you can accurately predict what the future is?
So can you.
If you take poison now you can predict your death in the near future.
Similarly, you can take very small amounts of poison periodically so that it won't kill you but makes you sick. Eventually it will kill you though.
Doctors predict the future all the time, biologists too.
Hell.. everyone constantly predicts the future accurately.. is that news to you ?
As an atheist, you've stopped thinking at a certain point. The rest requires a broader perspective than you've decided to have.
Broader perspective? Coming from you, the person who gets their entire moral foundation from a Bronze Age work of fiction, that is adorable!
Humans don't suffer either when we eat them. I expect you will be eating atheists tonight ?
I thought I was eating atheists when I ate animals?:p
So can you.
If you take poison now you can predict your death in the near future.
Similarly, you can take very small amounts of poison periodically so that it won't kill you but makes you sick. Eventually it will kill you though.
Doctors predict the future all the time, biologists too.
Hell.. everyone constantly predicts the future accurately.. is that news to you ?
All drugs are poisons- so there you go, you're wrong. :p
Broader perspective? Coming from you, the person who gets their entire moral foundation from a Bronze Age work of fiction, that is adorable!
So you think one should discard the past to obtain a broader perspective? :roflmao:
Do atheists who believe in evolution also believe in environmental conservation?
Why?
People, who use their brains, don't "believe" in scientific theories, they understand them.
"Believing" is for those who don't use their brains to understand.
People, who use their brains, don't "believe" in scientific theories, they understand them.
"Believing" is for those who don't use their brains to understand.
You understand all scientific theories? Each and every one of them?
Take nothing at all on faith? :)
I thought I was eating atheists when I ate animals?:p
All drugs are poisons- so there you go, you're wrong. :p
Really good points there SAM.. :rolleyes:
Really good points there SAM.. :rolleyes:
Take any "life saving" drug by the capful and let me know how long you will live.
And hey, you're the one who told me ants are atheists. /crunches on ants.
Take any "life saving" drug by the capful and let me know how long you will live.
And hey, you're the one who told me ants are atheists. /crunches on ants.
What does the word 'atheist' mean ?
What does the word 'atheist' mean ?
According to dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist)
a·the·ist Audio Help /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-ist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Synonyms Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
From dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist):
atheist
1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (c.1534) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."
You understand all scientific theories? Each and every one of them?
No, Sam, not all of them, as you ask a question a 10 year old might ask. But, I certainly understand far more than you.
Take nothing at all on faith?
No, Sam, faith is for the ignorant who don't want to understand how things work. You're a prime example of faith.
From dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist):
atheist
1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (c.1534) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."
So the meaning is to deny the gods from the roots without+gods, that sounds about right.:shrug:
unless you think agnostic means without+knowledge
No, Sam, not all of them, as you ask a question a 10 year old might ask. But, I certainly understand far more than you.
So you reject all the ones you don't understand?
No, Sam, faith is for the ignorant who don't want to understand how things work. You're a prime example of faith.
Infidelity is not a virtue. ;)
So the meaning is to deny the gods from the roots without+gods, that sounds about right.:shrug:
unless you think agnostic means without+knowledge
No.
Atheist means without god.
Agnostic means without knowledge.
One can be agnostic about many things, the term doesn't only apply to deities.
One can be agnostic about many things, the term doesn't only apply to deities.
Show me where agnostic is defined to mean anything not related to God. Just one example will suffice.
Show me where agnostic is defined to mean anything not related to God. Just one example will suffice.
Does a dictionary definition suffice ? :rolleyes:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
Geez louise, you guys keep changing the meaning of all the words!
Now if anyone tells me he is agnostic, I have to remember to ask whether it relates to God or politics.
As far as I knew, an agnostic was the counter to a gnostic or the path of ultimate reality through Jesus [or God]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
Geez louise, you guys keep changing the meaning of all the words!
Now if anyone tells me he is agnostic, I have to remember to ask whether it relates to God or politics.
As far as I knew, an agnostic was the counter to a gnostic or the path of ultimate reality through Jesus [or God]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
You guys ? Obviously it doesn't lie in your nature to admit mistakes..
You guys ? Obviously it doesn't lie in your nature to admit mistakes..
I did admit my mistake. When was the second meaning added? What is the origin of usage?
I did admit my mistake. When was the second meaning added? What is the origin of usage?
You still don't admit it, apparently.
Simon Anders
06-21-08, 05:39 PM
Yup. That is it. Everything is evolution. War, holocaust, starvation, extinction. Its all natural. Conservationism is also evolution. :p I guess you missed the point.
An atheist's son is falling off a building. He rushes over the help him. Even though he believes in gravity. Fucking hypocrite.
Simon Anders
06-21-08, 05:59 PM
On the contrary, the environmental future is quite well known. Haven't you heard all the fuss about climate change, environmental degradation, pollution, etc.? Taking action to address issues raised by scientific evidence is not a faith-based approach. It's simple common sense.
1) you are assuming, for some reason, that I am questioning the liklihood of the problems you mentioned
2) yes, I have heard of those things
3) simple common sense, it could be argued, is not necessarily the logical, reasoned out (or even correct) rational process that atheists often deride theists for NOT using in relation to God. Simple common sense will also run up against a lot of problems in relation to things we know from science. I think in this context an appeal to simply common sense shows that you don't get what SAM is up to here - which is why I was trying to cut down on the amount of time it took before you caught on - and highlights her point. One person's common sense is another person's supernatural or politically motivated belief.
I think SAM's case here, which is generally implied rather than directly stated, has problems, but I also think is does present the edge of a sticky issue for atheists. How much intuition/common sense (as one sees it)/faith is one allowed to have before it becomes categorized as irrational.
I've read your posts. I am sure you have reached conclusions about, for example, climate change, via reading and analysis, etc. But SAM is cutting below such specifics. She is asking why atheists would be conservationists and be concerned about an unknowable future. Something that is not here, that is not tangible, nor can it be tested. I think another tack she could take is why are atheists who are often determinists would be concerned about the future. It is what it is (already in a sense). Their concerns and beliefs about what should be done must be all admitted to be irrational. Especially if they are over say, 50 and stand a reasonable chance of dying 'naturally' before the whole thing falls apart. In fact a moment's reflection on this quote of yours.
the environmental future is quite well known is philosophically interesting. You are speaking about the future as if it was existant. You are also implying, in fact stating, that the future will be a certain way. Both of these qualities raise issues for atheists in relation to their behavior, for example around conservationism and epistemology.
The atheist can come back and say that given what we know about the past and the changes we have witnessed we can considers certain futures more likely than others and also that it is overwhelmingly likely that there will be a world here and so on. So the atheist can feel that belief in a God and belief in the liklihood of certain futures are beliefs of different kinds, the latter also being more likely. I don't find this completely adequate. I disagree with SAM that the two beliefs are the same, yet, at the same time I think there is a degree of working from axioms that are not and really cannot be tested involved. (remember this is in a philosophy forum where issues like the existence of the future can come up in ways that are not practical for most scientists).
Curling up in her post's is also a critique, I believe, in that while atheists certainly can have and do have values and concerns and ethics, THESE MUST BE GROUNDED ON FAITH. Evolution is evolution. There is no objective value without a God. We can have desires, but we cannot argue, for example, that diversity of species is good, unless we are appealing to what she would class as irrational justifications - casting this idea back at the atheists.
This does not mean that atheists have no values, but that their values are based on an irrational leap. If they allow themselves this irrational leap - and a look through the forums will find atheists quite sure that the war in Iraq was right (or wrong), that abortion should be legal (generally) and so on. The consider their positions rational.
Objectively (given the beliefs of many athiests) both a Mad Max future and a sustainable diverse set of diverse ecosystems future are neutral.
My double reaction to SAM's writing in this thread can be seen in this post and the one above it.
scorpius
06-21-08, 06:43 PM
Originally Posted by scorpius
so as you can see; atheists morality beats your religious nuts again!
now give me one good reason why shouldnt we eliminate all the religious loonies who are danger to us, from this world?
I suppose this is an apt demonstration of atheist "morality". At least, from historical evidence.
strictly MINE own,
now do tell,
what does quran tell you have to do to anyone who doesnt share your religion?
you see, ...you get what you give,
and until you start respecting everyones beliefs you are a threat to all!
Simon Anders
06-21-08, 06:46 PM
and until you start respecting everyones beliefs you are a threat to all!
I've have never met anyone who respected everyone's beliefs. Have you? In fact believing that is a good thing to do is a belief I do not respect.
scorpius
06-21-08, 06:55 PM
Do atheists who believe in evolution also believe in environmental conservation?
not sure I understand you,
what exactly do you mean by... environmental conservation?
scorpius
06-21-08, 07:15 PM
I've have never met anyone who respected everyone's beliefs. Have you? .
yes,I do respect everyones beliefs,no matter how silly,dont bother me none,its your life youre wasting...
you can even try to convert me,
however so far ,everyone from Jehovas Witless to Jebus freaks and ALL others always left disapointed and some even damn near in tears when the simple logic started to sink in.
I think Ive heard all the silly arguments for god already, from cant see the wind or electricity up to you'll BURN in HELL sinner,lunacy...
they are all so pathetic and childish, perhaps its just evolutions way of making some people gullible and exploitable for the good of others smarter ones,.only reason I can come up with why some believe such nonsense...
its when they start preaching hate and kill the Infidels etc...
is when I,and all atheists simply have to stand up defend ourselves against these Islamo (and xian) fascists..
Randwolf
06-21-08, 07:20 PM
yes,I do respect everyones beliefs,no matter how silly,dont bother me none,its your life youre wasting...
...
its when they start preaching hate and kill the Infidels etc...
is when I,and all atheists simply have to stand up defend ourselves against these Islamo (and xian) fascists..
Do you respect the beliefs of the people you stand up to defend yourself against?
Troll,
So you think one should discard the past to obtain a broader perspective?
No, but you have to see religion for what it is: Myth. If you hold those ancient texts to be true, then you prevent yourself from progressing. I point to stem cell research, which in the US is behind the times in comparison to other Western societies because of religious dogma.
I'm not saying you should just forget what role religion played in human civilization, but religion by nature forces civilization to remain in place, which is why you have to understand it but move on from it. Saying we should keep those myths as belief systems today is like saying we should plan our space exploration missions under the premise that the sun revolves around the Earth.
Simon Anders
06-21-08, 07:52 PM
yes,I do respect everyones beliefs,no matter how silly,dont bother me none,its your life youre wasting...
you can even try to convert me,
however so far ,everyone from Jehovas Witless to Jebus freaks and ALL others always left disapointed and some even damn near in tears when the simple logic started to sink in.
I think Ive heard all the silly arguments for god already, from cant see the wind or electricity up to you'll BURN in HELL sinner,lunacy...
they are all so pathetic and childish, perhaps its just evolutions way of making some people gullible and exploitable for the good of others smarter ones,.only reason I can come up with why some believe such nonsense...
its when they start preaching hate and kill the Infidels etc...
is when I,and all atheists simply have to stand up defend ourselves against these Islamo (and xian) fascists..
Now I understand what you mean by 'respect' more clearly. I think you are using the word oddly and this led to miscommunication.
Now I understand what you mean by 'respect' more clearly. I think you are using the word oddly and this led to miscommunication.
If you don't like being challenged, then go home.
Simon Anders
06-21-08, 08:05 PM
If you don't like being challenged, then go home.
1) Um, I am home.
2) You obviously don't respect these people or their beliefs.
3) If you don't like being challenged you can log off. (I can come up with a non sequitur also)
2) You obviously don't respect these people or their beliefs.
No, I don't respect other people's beliefs. Why should I? When have we ever, as a people, respected beliefs? If I disagree, I'll always challenge you, just like people will always challenge me when they disagree.
Simon Anders
06-21-08, 08:13 PM
No, I don't respect other people's beliefs. Why should I? When have we ever, as a people, respected beliefs? If I disagree, I'll always challenge you, just like people will always challenge me when they disagree.Why did you respond to my post to Scorpius who says he respects everyone's beliefs? Did you understand what I said to him? He says he respects everyone's beliefs. I point out that he clearly does not respect them. You hop in and say something assinine. I thought you read the posts. I thought you somehow thought scorpius was making sense when he said he respects people. At least you have the honesty to say you don't respect everyone's beliefs - something I said above about myself. You're a real tough guy but you should learn to read.
That's actually my bad. I saw the last few posts and figured this was another "You should respect other people's beliefs" argument. My bad.
Simon Anders
06-21-08, 08:28 PM
no prob. and thanks. it almost never happens that someone admits anything here.
I agree. But I like to think of myself as more fair than that. How can I expect anyone else to hold themselves to any sort of standard in an argument if I don't hold myself to any?
scorpius
06-21-08, 08:48 PM
Originally Posted by scorpius
yes,I do respect everyones beliefs,no matter how silly,dont bother me none,its your life youre wasting...
you can even try to convert me,
however so far ,everyone from Jehovas Witless to Jebus freaks and ALL others always left disapointed and some even damn near in tears when the simple logic started to sink in.
I think Ive heard all the silly arguments for god already, from cant see the wind or electricity up to you'll BURN in HELL sinner,lunacy...
they are all so pathetic and childish, perhaps its just evolutions way of making some people gullible and exploitable for the good of others smarter ones,.only reason I can come up with why some believe such nonsense...
its when they start preaching hate and kill the Infidels etc...
is when I,and all atheists simply have to stand up defend ourselves against these Islamo (and xian) fascists..
Now I understand what you mean by 'respect' more clearly. I think you are using the word oddly and this led to miscommunication.
dude I call them way they are
,look up the definitions of all your BOLDED words in a dictionary and youll see Im right on the money.
it might help if
maybe you could also look at belief in Flying spaghetti monster
or some OTHER religions...
here pick one www.godchecker.com
and describe to me how do you feel about it,them?
I still respect all who believe in them,though they all seem silly imo.
makes sense now??
scorpius
06-21-08, 08:52 PM
Now I understand what you mean by 'respect' more clearly. I think you are using the word oddly and this led to miscommunication.
Do you respect the beliefs of the people you stand up to defend yourself against?
is there an ECHO in here???:shrug:
Simon Anders
06-21-08, 09:21 PM
dude I call them way they are
,look up the definitions of all your BOLDED words in a dictionary and youll see Im right on the money.
yes,I do respect everyones beliefs
It is the definition of 'respect' I am focusing on. The bolded portions make it clear you neither respect them or their ideas.
'I respect your idea but it is silly.'
'I respect your idea which you are gullible, pathetic, foolish, exploited for having.'
Can you see?
It doesn't work. You don't understand the word 'respect'. I agree with your assertion that you are calling them as you see them. I disagree with your idea that you respect all ideas. I don't know what psychological purpose it serves for you to think you respect these people and their ideas, but I just need to let you know, you don't. Perhaps you have a small community that uses the word 'respect' in a different way than the rest of us. In that case it is still good information for you to know that this is a very small minority usage.
I still respect all who believe in them,though they all seem silly imo.
makes sense now??
1) no.
2) now you are saying you respect these gullible, pathetic, stupid people. This is different from saying what I was challenging which is that you respect their stupid ideas. But, in any case, you do neither.
Simon Anders
06-21-08, 09:21 PM
is there an ECHO in here???:shrug: Perhaps more than one person noticed what you were saying did not make sense.
Is it fair to ask why we should be expected to respect someone's opinion?
Simon Anders
06-21-08, 09:34 PM
Is it fair to ask why we should be expected to respect someone's opinion?
Of course. I don't respect a great many ideas and opinions. I can even have very similar feelings to the one's scorpius is expressing though perhaps not always with the same targets. But I don't think some ideas deserve respect. Let me pick an example that, hopefully, everyone here can agree with...
'Weak children should be killed.'
I don't respect that idea. I respect scorpius enough to think he does not respect this idea either - though I am making a guess I, obviously, cannot be 100% sure of.
Respecting people whose ideas we disagree with can be a good thing. I would certainly have a hard time respecting someone who believed my example idea. I would not pressure myself to respect him either.
I really don't think respect of an idea in general is a good thing, unless you agree with it. If you respect an idea you disagree with, then you're not going to challenge it. If you do, then you aren't respecting it, and to say you are isn't true. It's a superficial dressing.
I think people confuse "respecting an idea" with "protecting the right of people to hold an idea". I believe it is just as important to hear the person in the room who says the holocaust didn't happen as it is to hear the person who says it did. It might be more important, actually, to protect the rights of the person who says it didn't happen, because we stand to learn more from that person than the other. As in, how the fuck did he come to that conclusion in spite of all the evidence?
Simon Anders
06-21-08, 09:42 PM
I think people confuse "respecting an idea" with "protecting the right of people to hold an idea". Concise and clear.
Concise and clear.
I didn't mean to imply you, Simon.
Simon Anders
06-21-08, 10:18 PM
I didn't mean to imply you, Simon.
Didn't take it that way.
Oh! So that was a compliment. Thanks! :D
Simon Anders
06-21-08, 10:26 PM
Oh! So that was a compliment. Thanks! :D
yes. Sometimes I take a page when it could be a sentence. It wasn't exactly the point I was making, but a parallel point stated, well, cogently and clearly.
James R
06-22-08, 02:44 AM
SAM:
So you can accurately predict what the future is?
Sure, in some areas. Anybody with some experience, knowledge and common sense can do it.
I can also tell you things other than the future. For example, somewhere in your house you have an out-of-date calendar. You also have a scar on your knee from a childhood accident.
lepustimidus
06-22-08, 10:05 AM
I can't believe that this thread has so many participants. Are atheists actually retarded enough to shallow S.A.M's shit stirring hook line and sinker? I mean, seriously, S.A.M is part of a religion which regards atheists as possibly the lowest life form on the planet, and you expect honest discourse with her regarding atheism? Get real. She's a troll, plain and simple.
scorpius
06-22-08, 04:41 PM
I can't believe that this thread has so many participants. Are atheists actually retarded enough to shallow S.A.M's shit stirring hook line and sinker?
I mean, seriously, S.A.M is part of a religion which regards atheists as possibly the lowest life form on the planet, and you expect honest discourse with her regarding atheism? Get real. She's a troll, plain and simple.
I know,
still there may be lurkers who may learn something from reading all this.
who knows,maybe even SAM may evolve enough to reach the age of reason someday.
spidergoat
06-22-08, 04:51 PM
I can't believe that this thread has so many participants. Are atheists actually retarded enough to shallow S.A.M's shit stirring hook line and sinker? I mean, seriously, S.A.M is part of a religion which regards atheists as possibly the lowest life form on the planet, and you expect honest discourse with her regarding atheism? Get real. She's a troll, plain and simple.
Amen.
lepustimidus
06-22-08, 06:53 PM
Amen.
I've pointed out several times in the past that S.A.M trolls the religion subforum to push an agenda. In response, posters have cried 'Nonsense' and accused me of having some sort of grudge against S.A.M. "She's here for an intellectual discussion!" they cry naively.
But just check out her posting history in the Religion subforum. Every thread started by her attempts to belittle atheists with bullshit strawmen. No wonder (Q) got so shitty with her.
That's why I only refer to her as "Troll".
spidergoat
06-23-08, 03:59 PM
I've pointed out several times in the past that S.A.M trolls the religion subforum to push an agenda. In response, posters have cried 'Nonsense' and accused me of having some sort of grudge against S.A.M. "She's here for an intellectual discussion!" they cry naively.
But just check out her posting history in the Religion subforum. Every thread started by her attempts to belittle atheists with bullshit strawmen. No wonder (Q) got so shitty with her.
I admit, I used to think that too.
SAM:
Sure, in some areas. Anybody with some experience, knowledge and common sense can do it.
I can also tell you things other than the future. For example, somewhere in your house you have an out-of-date calendar. You also have a scar on your knee from a childhood accident.
Hmm I have neither the calendar nor the scar. What does that mean?:p
Hmm I have neither the calendar nor the scar. What does that mean?:p
That you have had a sheltered childhood where you never once scraped your knee and it caused a scar and you clean your house at the end of every year and throw out out of date calendars.
Yeah, but as atheists who believe in evolution, isn't environmental conservation redundant?
How so?
Do you think atheists are being silly by wanting to preserve the natural environment and lessen the effects of our own impact on said environment?
Your argument in this thread does not make sense.
It is akin to asking whether atheists (or theists for that matter) who believe in evolution and who have children should care for those children because doing so would be redundant.
:rolleyes:
James R
06-23-08, 10:25 PM
Hmm I have neither the calendar nor the scar. What does that mean?
It means you haven't looked hard enough!
I admit, I used to think that too.
You don't anymore ? :confused:
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.