Religion IS crazy!

[luutzu]

Hello VC,

My comment was intentionally provocative, thank you for not taking offense.

The general definition of a materialist is a person who believes that matter (and energy) is all there is -- all things are reducible to the properties of matter (gravity, velocity, electromagnetic charge, etc) i.e. there is no purpose in life, no foundation for morality or ethics, no meaning in existence, and no such thing as free will.

The basis of my comment is that there is (substantial) objective physical evidence that this concept is almost certainly false, and this evidence is routinely ignored by materialists. This is quite a contradictory position for a group who typically believe that the analysis of material evidence is our only reliable method of knowledge.

If certain muscles does not move, certain synapses does not fire, would morality and thought and meaning and free will still exists? Tie your legs up and see if you could free will yourself to walk.

If free will, morality, goodness, evil thought and other dark perversions were programmed into us - why are some people good and others bad? God want to keep us on our toes? Defects?

You want objective evidence, proof etc... you say science can't prove it but religion can because? Because God just made everything.

But let say there is a Creator... which one? The European God or the Muslim's Allah? Or the Rainbow snake or the Dragon King or the Buddha etc. etc.

Right off the bat, Creationism already biased towards that one and only God. Science does not do such thing. Science does not say that the world either work just as Newton or Darwin or Copernicus said it does else it does not work at all. I doubt very much Creationists even entertain the idea that a Dragon King or the Jade Emperor rule over the world and deep in the ocean Neptune rule the waves while Zeus might actually run Mt Olympus and may even know the God that created the world in six days, bring Adam to life and tell some descendant of Adam about it all.

 

[Biosemiosis org]

Hello VC,

Ok, so I am pretty much a materialist as I said, because yes I believe everything that exists is physical in nature, though I am not trying to say we have discovered everything.

I agree, we have certainly not discovered everything.

But the second paragraph is where you are trying to load all the other baggage into your definition, a materialist doesn't have to believe there is no meaning to life and it doesn't mean there is no foundation for morality.

By “no foundation” it is typically meant no ultimate foundation. For instance, under materialism, if one people say it is okay to keep chattel slaves and rape women, then another people have nothing to appeal to in order to say it is wrong to do so. This is a well-worn argument. Non-materialists repeatedly make this case, while materialist repeatedly deny it, but they have nothing but their personal preferences to appeal to -- which is the very point that the non-materialist are making. It is the classic argument between an “ought” and an “is”. Physical matter is about what is, and not raping women is about what ought to be. You cannot get an ought from an is. And you’ll notice this is not an argument about whether or not theism or atheism is true; it is about the logical consequences of either belief. I cannot remember off the top of my head, but a famous atheist author once wrote in complete candor that of all the things he disliked, he hated most the reality that the only thing that separated him from rape and slaughter was his personal dislike of the practice.

But this is not an argument we need to continue; it will always remain the same. Theists must acknowledge that the argument does not demonstrate the truth of theism, no matter how obvious it is to them that rape and slaughter are objectively wrong, and the atheist must acknowledge that the logical outcome of his belief is that rape and slaughter are not objectively wrong, no matter how much he wants to believe that they are. If rape and slaughter are subjective, then that’s the end of it. There will always be someone who is prepared to rape and slaughter, and the materialist has no objective means to say otherwise.

I think you are just trying to find reasons to invoke supernatural things, when you don't really have any solid reason too do that.

You are welcome to that belief.

I mean can you name something that exists which isn't physical, or an emerging property of something that is physical?

This is not difficult; the number three. Go outside and bring in a three.

Of course, you will merely say that man invented mathematics with his brain, but that is merely assuming your conclusion. Interesting isn’t it; the physical universe is describable through math, whether or not mankind ever existed.

Also it must be noted, you are effectively asking me to provide you physical evidence of something not physical. I am not exactly certain how you would expect anyone to satisfy that question. This should call into mind the reasonableness of such a request.

What's this evidence that materialists ignore.

There are many such instances. You can find my thoughts on my website: Biosemiosis.org

I am happy to answer any questions you might have.

 

[SirRumpole]

Everything about that is physical, it's not about whether something can be "justified in physical terms", it's about whether anything is happening that's not physical, the people dying are physical, the thing killing them is physical, the thought process itself is an emerging property of a physical brain.

It's all physical/ material

---------------------------

On the topic of sacrificing ones life to save another, there are plenty of valid evolutionary reasons why an organism might sacrifice itself for others, evolution selects which gene pools survive and which don't, a gene pool where organisms might leap to defend their relatives will survive at better rates than a gene pool that doesn't look after each other.

Eg, an individual that dies protecting his siblings, offspring, cousins or nieces and nephews, might not get to breed, but it has still helped ensure the passing on of its genes, because those relatives are carrying it's genes. Not to mention that it doesn't always end in death, some times the defence is successful without the protector dying, so it makes Complete sense that in some situations humans are capable of selflessness, because as Dawkins wrote in his book, the individual can be act selflessly because it's the genes that are selfish.

Individuals have been known to sacrifice themselves for complete strangers, how does that fit in to your theory ?

 

[luutzu]

Hello VC,



I agree, we have certainly not discovered everything.



By “no foundation” it is typically meant no ultimate foundation. For instance, under materialism, if one people say it is okay to keep chattel slaves and rape women, then another people have nothing to appeal to in order to say it is wrong to do so. This is a well-worn argument. Non-materialists repeatedly make this case, while materialist repeatedly deny it, but they have nothing but their personal preferences to appeal to -- which is the very point that the non-materialist are making. It is the classic argument between an “ought” and an “is”. Physical matter is about what is, and not raping women is about what ought to be. You cannot get an ought from an is. And you’ll notice this is not an argument about whether or not theism or atheism is true; it is about the logical consequences of either belief. I cannot remember off the top of my head, but a famous atheist author once wrote in complete candor that of all the things he disliked, he hated most the reality that the only thing that separated him from rape and slaughter was his personal dislike of the practice.
...

I enjoyed that. Like watching a bad comedy.

So an atheist cannot objectively argued that rape and murder is wrong? Did you really say that?

How about you cannot kill people because if you do, they will never ever come back and there is no Heaven or any better place for them to go to. That alone kind of stop people from killing anyone; and they cannot use "better place" or God told me to do it as an excuse to kill their children or loved ones in a murder/suicide.

A religious person could be convinced, and history have shown many have been persuaded, to kill and rape and plunder because even it seems wrong, it's doing God's work.

Anyway, got a Sherlock episode to watch.

 

[Biosemiosis org]

So an atheist cannot objectively argued that rape and murder is wrong? Did you really say that?

Yes I said that. I really did.

If you know better, then your Nobel Prize awaits, along with fame and fortune beyond anything ever known.

Or, you are just now finding this out.

 

[Value Collector]

I agree, we have certainly not discovered everything.



.

So why make statements like "science could never", I mean that's a bit like a person in 1869 saying science can't put a man on the moon, well the fact is science can and did 100years later, and the answer to putting men on the moon was more science, not a dismissal of science because at the given time they hadn't made the necessary discoveries.

For instance, under materialism, if one people say it is okay to keep chattel slaves and rape women, then another people have nothing to appeal to in order to say it is wrong to do so. This is a well-worn argument. Non-materialists repeatedly make this case, while materialist repeatedly deny it, but they have nothing but their personal preferences to appeal to --

Nope, morality is not based on opinion, its based on the well being of physical creatures (I have been through this in depth with other members here)

It can easily be shown that slavery and rape is not in the best interests of the wellbeing of the victims, and breaches some of the moral principles which have been discovered through sound logic and reasoning, and observing the physical outcomes.

We don't need to invoke the concept of a god or anything supernatural to show that those things are immoral, they can be shown to be immoral by looking at the outcomes of those actions.

I cannot remember off the top of my head, but a famous atheist author once wrote in complete candor that of all the things he disliked, he hated most the reality that the only thing that separated him from rape and slaughter was his personal dislike of the practice.

If an atheist actually said that, they are wrong, simple as that.

atheist must acknowledge that the logical outcome of his belief is that rape and slaughter are not objectively wrong, no matter how much he wants to believe that they are. If rape and slaughter are subjective, then that’s the end of it. There will always be someone who is prepared to rape and slaughter, and the materialist has no objective means to say otherwise.

As I explained above, rape is objectively wrong, and it can be shown to be wrong by the fact that it breaches moral principles which are not subjective, but which are objective.

This is not difficult; the number three. Go outside and bring in a three. Of course, you will merely say that man invented mathematics with his brain, but that is merely assuming your conclusion. Interesting isn’t it; the physical universe is

The number 3/three, is just a symbol/word humans have invented to describe something that exists in the physical world.

Everything about it is physical, from the physical things which we apply the concept to, to the original thought that invested it being an emergent property of a physical brain.

Also it must be noted, you are effectively asking me to provide you physical evidence of something not physical. I am not exactly certain how you would expect anyone to satisfy that question. This should call into mind the reasonableness of such a request.

what is the difference between something that is not physical and something that doesn't exist, I don't really understand what you mean.

it calls into question the reasonableness of your claim, you are claim something non physical exists, and the purpose for this claim is so that you can invoke supernatural answers, probably in the form of your religious concepts of gods etc.

But then when asked to explain what these existing non physical things are, you don't have an answer, except to make logical fallacies about morality and purpose not existing without it.

I am happy to answer any questions you might have

Here is my question.

Since you claim that materialists can't answer questions like "What's the meaning of life" and you don't seem to be a materialist, so you should have a better understanding of it, What in your opinion is the meaning of life??


The reason I ask, is that atheists often get told that with our views there is not meaning of life, So in your view, what is it????

As far as I have seen no religion has come up with an answer, and the answer most atheists would say is that its a silly question, and its up to each person to give their own lives meaning, not some outside authority.

 

[luutzu]

Yes I said that. I really did.

If you know better, then your Nobel Prize awaits, along with fame and fortune beyond anything ever known.

Or, you are just now finding this out.

They give Nobel Prizes to rapists and murderers do they? I mean, OK fair enough, certain war criminals do get it now and then... but they're psychotic and too powerful to do anything about it. The common murderer and rapists tend to get gassed or life in prison - earning maybe a dollar a day if they're lucky.

But for argument's sake, say an atheist person cannot objectively argue that rape and murder is wrong as you agree with some psycho who said that... I take it that those who follow the Bible or some other religion could objectively argue that rape and murder is wrong then?

How do they make that argument? Because the Good Book taught them to?

Even if that is what you are implying - that an authority in the guise of a God said it is wrong so it is wrong; whereas atheist got no one to tell them... wait. I thought the law is pretty clear about rape and murder, and they're the one who can and will lock the guilty, or found guilty, up.

Another thing... if we follow this line of reasoning you're on... are all those pedophile priests all atheists or what?

 

[Biosemiosis org]

VC,

So why make statements like "science could never"

I’m not sure I made such a statement. But while we are at it, can science turn you into me? Can it make a square circle? Can it show that thermal energy travels from cold to hot?

Nope, morality is not based on opinion, its based on the well being of physical creatures (I have been through this in depth with other members here)

You just made my point. And obviously didn’t realize it.

If an atheist actually said that, they are wrong, simple as that.

Actually I think it was the eminent philosopher Thomas Nagel who said that (I could be wrong), in which case it would be because he has studied the issue as his life’s work and has a tendency to tell it like it is.

Since you claim that materialists can't answer questions like "What's the meaning of life"

I never said that. I said that the logical consequence of materialism is that there is no objective foundation for morality or ethics -- which is true.

What in your opinion is the meaning of life??

That is a question that each person has to answer for themselves. That's not my gig.
.

 

[Biosemiosis org]

Luutzu, you don't really read for comprehension do you?

 

[luutzu]

Luutzu, you don't really read for comprehension do you?

How about you explain it to me like i'm a three year old.

 

[Biosemiosis org]

How about you explain it to me like i'm a three year old.

When a cell uses genetic information to produce a protein, it uses a system that a physicist can uniquely identify among all other physical systems. The only other place in the cosmos that such a system can be found is in recorded language and mathematics - two unambiguous correlates of intelligence.

Now go clean your room.

 

[Value Collector]

You just made my point. And obviously didn’t realize it.
.

How so, you are saying that without an external authority to appeal to, morality is subjective. I am saying that its not, and that morality is objective based on scientific facts and no external authority is needed.

Actually I think it was the eminent philosopher Thomas Nagel who said that (I could be wrong),

Well why don't you go and find a quote that's in context. but either way, this guy is probably just wrong.

. I said that the logical consequence of materialism is that there is no objective foundation for morality or ethics -- which is true.

As I said, I don't think that's true at all. what is good for human well being is not subjective.

If I hold you down and pour acid down your throat, it will reduce your health, and given that one of the driving principles of morality is the well being of humans, and it can be shown that as far as well being is concerned good health is preferable to poor health, and freedom is preferable to non freedom, that both holding you down against your will and pouring acid down your throat is not going to be a moral action.

You don't need a god to understand human well being, and outcomes of actions.

It's not based on opinion any more than the answer to a complex mathematical problem is, different people might get different answers if they don't have all the facts needed to work out the problem, but that doesn't ever change what the correct answer is.

 

[SirRumpole]

As I said, I don't think that's true at all. what is good for human well being is not subjective.

Why should we give foreign aid ? Australian foreign aid is now being cut back.

Your argument seems to be that the well being of people in other countries is materially significant to us here in Australia, when in fact it just diminishes our wealth and therefore our ability to look after our own welfare.

If the whole population of Ethiopia is wiped out by starvation it would not affect the well being of Australians, except on our consciences.

Do you think conscience is physical ?

I suppose you are going to say that conscience is a function of brain structure ? Do you think that the brain structure of bleeding heart Lefty supporters who want increased foreign aid is physically different to that of Dry Tories who want foreign aid reduced ?

 

[Biosemiosis org]

VC, you do realize that your belief in "scientific evidence" is subjective - don't you? And you also must recognize that your interpretation of that evidence is subjective as well. The mere act of interpretation rather implies a variable, does it not - a subjective variable? Surely you see this.

And this observation is not about what we might all agree to in life, and it is not about who is right or wrong. Everyone will arrive at the way they act subjectively, whether or not there is an objective standard or not. But if there is no objective standard, then rape and slaughter are not among the things that are objectively wrong, because there is no objective standard for them to violate. You cannot get an ought from an is. This is why the philosopher was troubled to think that the only that separated him from abject butchery was his personal preference to not butcher. Show me someone who holds up their hand to say "what is good for the people is what is objectively correct" and I''ll show you someone who will cut that person down and take his things. He doesn't share your standard, or your scientific justifications for believing in it.

This is my last post on this subject. If you want to talk about scientific evidence then I am happy to have that conversation.

 

[Value Collector]

When a cell uses genetic information to produce a protein, it uses a system that a physicist can uniquely identify among all other physical systems. The only other place in the cosmos that such a system can be found is in recorded language and mathematics - two unambiguous correlates of intelligence.

Creationists / intelligent design proponents always try and point at things say there is no way for them to form without a designer, and so far they have always been proven wrong, they used to point at things like wings and eye balls, now they have been reduced to saying "cells use languages etc that aren't possible without a designer"

Now, I am not an expert in DNA or Cells, but I think such claims are probably equally false.

Why don't you link a bit more info.

Any way, Languages are good examples of things that have developed over long periods of times, why would it not be possible that any complex "Language" used by cells has not developed over long periods of time through natural selection, why would you assume a designer?

also, just because something can be interpreted using mathamatics, doesn't mean it took a mathematician to design it.

 

[luutzu]

When a cell uses genetic information to produce a protein, it uses a system that a physicist can uniquely identify among all other physical systems. The only other place in the cosmos that such a system can be found is in recorded language and mathematics - two unambiguous correlates of intelligence.

Now go clean your room.

Tell a three year old again how rape and murder is not really wrong, that if they can be bothered with the mess it's OK to do it.

What a psycho.

 

[luutzu]

VC, you do realize that your belief in "scientific evidence" is subjective - don't you? And you also must recognize that your interpretation of that evidence is subjective as well. The mere act of interpretation rather implies a variable, does it not - a subjective variable? Surely you see this.

And this observation is not about what we might all agree to in life, and it is not about who is right or wrong. Everyone will arrive at the way they act subjectively, whether or not there is an objective standard or not. But if there is no objective standard, then rape and slaughter are not among the things that are objectively wrong, because there is no objective standard for them to violate. You cannot get an ought from an is. This is why the philosopher was troubled to think that the only that separated him from abject butchery was his personal preference to not butcher. Show me someone who holds up their hand to say "what is good for the people is what is objectively correct" and I''ll show you someone who will cut that person down and take his things. He doesn't share your standard, or your scientific justifications for believing in it.

This is my last post on this subject. If you want to talk about scientific evidence then I am happy to have that conversation.

Just because you can find a murdering psycho to do the rape and pillaging does not then mean that what they psycho think is also objectively acceptable. Does it?

Murder is not just something you "ought" not do, it is something you do not do. Why? Not because one other people, or a group of other people, or an authority figure, or God himself said you "ought" not do it. It is a thing you do not do because, among other reasons, the dead don't come back; because you do not want the murdering being done to you so don't do it to others.

It's a very elementary concept to test morality and goodness objectively: Do not do unto others what you do not wished upon yourself.

And you do not need Jesus to teach you that. And you do not need the police and legal justice department to tell you not to do it either.

Anyway

 

[Value Collector]

VC, you do realize that your belief in "scientific evidence" is subjective - don't you? And you also must recognize that your interpretation of that evidence is subjective as well. The mere act of interpretation rather implies a variable, does it not - a subjective variable? Surely you see this.

.

The reality and facts of the universe are not subjective.

Imagine a question like this "what is the total number I get if I add the number of dollars you have in your pocket to the total number of dollars luutzu has in his, divided by the number of dogs I have owned in my life"

The answer to that question is not subjective, there is one answer, now we might all guess different answers because neither of us all the information but that doesn't make it subjective, we are either right or wrong.

But if there is no objective standard, then rape and slaughter are not among the things that are objectively wrong, because there is no objective standard for them to violate.

It can be shown be shown that rape and slaughter cause harm, and reduce the well being of the victim, we don't need an external authority for that, and that's what morality is all about, basic principles to guide actions to ensure well being.

 

[Value Collector]

Why should we give foreign aid ? Australian foreign aid is now being cut back.

Your argument seems to be that the well being of people in other countries is materially significant to us here in Australia, when in fact it just diminishes our wealth and therefore our ability to look after our own welfare.

?

I haven't mentioned foreign aid, so I am not sure what you are referring to.

If the whole population of Ethiopia is wiped out by starvation it would not affect the well being of Australians, except on our consciences.

Moral principles are not just about you and your club, but about how we treat all humans and even other thinking creatures.

So an action that causes another group to stave, would probably be considered immoral.

Do you think conscience is physical ?

I suppose you are going to say that conscience is a function of brain structure ?

Yep, unless you are aware of a conscience that exists outside of a physical brain/other thinking physical structure.

Do you think that the brain structure of bleeding heart Lefty supporters who want increased foreign aid is physically different to that of Dry Tories who want foreign aid reduced

No, same physical brains, same physical brain waves etc, but different inputs to the calculations they are making.

eg, like the example I gave of two doctors that come up with different answers to complex medical problems, there would be a "best answer", but that doesn't mean every doctor will get to that answer if they don't have all the information.

 

[Biosemiosis org]

Why don't you link a bit more info.

I already linked to an entire website Biosemiosis.org, that is dedicated to explaining these issues at the laymen's level, and that website has a bibliography of more than two dozen peer-reviewed sources in the literature. Among them is perhaps the leading authority on symbol systems, Howard Pattee, Professor Emeritus Physics, SUNY (an atheist by the way)

“Symbol systems first controlled material construction at the origin of life.”