Exactly why is mechanistic atheism a rational point of view? Seems to me, it pretty near misses the point in everything. The world isn’t mechanistic, Einstein proved that. Why should philosophy be?
Near as I can tell, it sounds like a philosophy brought up from self-selected axioms without relevance to the world at large. Sort of like an ontological proof of god.
Bandit, with all due respect, you have no right to tell atheists how they “must feel.” I can assure you first hand that I do not have to be afraid of any venegeful magic spirits in order to value life. The experience of living is completely sufficient for me. Evolution has also provided me with empathy for others. I feel distressed when others suffer and I feel good when they are happy. Evolution has provided me with strong emotional bonds to my wife and children and my life experience as a husband and father is all the “reason” I need from my life. My choices are not “morally meaningless,” I just don’t think that morality has anything to do with magic sky pixies and everything to do with evolution.
Also, there is no “universal ethic” in religion either. Religion IS culture. What is your evidence that religious morality comes from anything but human beings?
Whoa there hoss! Why must my choice of value be zero? Why can’t I choose my life to be of enormous value, indeed more valueable than anything else? Your “choices are morally meaningless” strawman is, well, meaningless. To choose, say, a utilitarian model of morality is not to choose no morality, just one which doesn’t involve God.
Atomic structures called “people”, that is. Why can’t people be atomic structures just as Playstations or clouds or chimps can be atomic structures?
Yes, thought is a physical process just as Doom 3 or a rainstorm or chimp pain is a physical process. Just because something is a physical process doesn’t make it nonexistent (storms don’t exist, they’re just a physical process??)
So? (Incidentally, I’d suggest that these meat machines are broken themselves.)
That’s rather an oversimplification: the cognitive modules which evolution endowed modern humanity with resond to certain stimuli with outputs called “pleasure”, but any individual human can also output a calculation in which it foregoes such pleasure since it can place that instance within a “higher level” model of its life, eg. fucking your sister for immediate gratification has higher level negative consequences in the longer term.
Who says this nonsense? Is it not simple strawmanship?
Then there is no such universal standard at all, since people disagree widely on the nature of God and indeed whether one or more exist at all.
Again, I’m not sure who you think believes this. Culture provides positive or negative consequences to certain behaviour, but one can go right ahead and behave in a way which is “counter to your culture” (whatever that means in the first place).
I choose a morality in which moral force is exerted according the consequences of actions in order to minimise “suffering” (itself defined as closely as reasonably possible by a medical or neurophysiological metric). My choice is that of one six billionth of humanity. Indeed, there are places in the world where choosing anything other than a religion-based moraltiy would drastically reduce my chances of survival. Thus, ethics to an atheist are clearly not just a survival strategy, and I don’t know which real atheist you got this from.
Chosen value is not necessarily no value, especially since appealing to a god or gods gets us no closer to an external universal value, agreed?
Err, what? Quantum mechanics shows we must accept some random element in the world, but why can’t an effectively random element be part of the calculation output by our brain?
We must all select the axioms to apply to the world at large: indeed, there is no such thing as a self-selecting axiom. We might agree to select the axiom “physical things exist”, and go on to explain all kinds of phenomena via reference to physical processes - this is arguably the purview of science. We might even ask “is there any phenomenon for which there is no natural explanation (or at least a natural mode of explanation)?”. My answer is no, and in this way I consider that no supernatural entity or explanation is necessary.
Smiling Badit, how does religion qualify as a source of morality? “Obey or suffer” isn’t a moral code. Doing what a god tells you to do is amorality, not morality.
As a practical matter, religion is far better at promoting greed, tyranny, and malice thatn it is at promoting even imitation morality.
Second, disbelief in superstition doesn’t mean you dismiss the existence of consciousness and emotions; few atheists think we are just a collection of atoms.
I think we are, amazingly, a collection of atoms. Am I in the “few”?
I’m sorry, I think I may have failed to differentiate between deterministic and mechanistic. Deterministic means that no matter what you do, the same inputs will create the same outputs. The universe is dynamic, the same inputs will not always have the same outputs.
Mechanistic seemed to mean the same, to within a limited degree.
By self-selected, I meant, self-selected to provoke a certain conclusion.
Just a collection of atoms ? You are a complex pattern of atoms, engaged in a wide variety of processes, encoding an enormous amount of information. Smiling Bandit talks like atheists think people are just…lumps of atoms. It’s an example of what I’ve heard called “greedy reductionism”, the attitude that the most basic level is the only level that matters. Usually ( but not always ) I’ve seen it used by people like Smiling Bandit, in an attempt to insult atheists.
I don’t aim to tell you how you must feel. I merely logically reduced all the arguments down the absolute basis. The object was as much to point out that you do indeed have other axioms or believe in other values than mechanistic atheism. WHich may seem like a minor point, hardly worthy of note. But all it is is axioms: unprovable beliefs.
I did not say that there was a universal ethic across all religions. Religions generally aim to provide a syustem of morality which applies to everyone, or at least, everyone worth mentioning.
You can, but this again comes down to an arbitrary choice under mechanistic Atheism. Ergo, it is axiomatic.
Exactly my point. But people are nothing more than an atomic structure, mere meat which happens to be warm than cold, mobile than still, they have no inherent value. And assigned value is indeed arbitrary.
Of course it exists. But its existence is irrelevant to anything not directly affected by said existence. Logically, I can have no concenr for “people” (mobile meat) anywhere else in the world. Their existence does not affect me except in the most indirect way. Logically, I can have no compassion for them or their misfortunes, as they have no life worth noting;l there is no distinction between life and death and unlife.
Exactly my point. People disagree on the nature of the divine or the supernatural or universal values. Since none of it can be proven to exist in nature, it probably does not, hence there is no universal standard of value. Without any universal standard, all standards are arbitrary, and equally meaningless.
Fine. Have fun with it. Create a scientifically-based suffering detection system and advocate the elimination of those who fail to “pass,” assuming it appears they will not add more pleasure to their system. I do not mean this as a rhetorical point or as an insult. If you really feel that utilitarianism (particularly the original form) is precisely correct, you ought to act upon it. If not, then you have other axioms which are unprovable beliefs.
Me, when I was an atheist. I realized that the so-called sociapaths were correct. The other atheists were merely lying to themselves, deceiving themselves about their own complete and total lack of worth. The logic was unpleasant, but unpleasantness is a matter of aesthetics; the logic was brual but unequivicably correct. It permits no variance I can detect, except by adding more axioms, which themselves are essentialy assumptions.
I believe most of you do not what I said was correct. I do not believe it is correct. But without other axioms, I cannot see it in any way incorrect.
Chosen value is neccessarily no value; no one else has any logical reason to value your values over their own whims. You may see value, but the value itself is meaningless. I do disagree that appealing to God brings us nowhere, as I will describe later.
I have not yet said that it was. Nowhere in my previous post did I suggest that appealing to God would bring us out of that. In fact, I essentially showed that Nihilism is the only logical system, if we understand that all axcioms are essentially equal in value (which means, reduced to its fuinadmental level, nil). I believe that appealing to God can get us out of this hole, but I have not yet posted on that and it is not necessary to understanding what I have posted.
Do not mistake me. What I posted was in no way a critique of atheism.
That is essentially the problem. It is reductionist, but not without a point. The point is showing that, in essence under mechanistic atheism, all values are merely arbitrary personal choices, with no more moral or ethical content than choosing pepperoni pizza over cheeze. Some are more complex, others less so. A pettern, per se, has no value. If it brings me pleasure to torment a pattern and cause it “suffering,” there is neither right nor wrong in doing so.
I do not mean to insult Atheists at all. I disagree with them, but I actually find the logical argument fairly ironclad, if brutal. It is an argument advanced by a surprising number of sociopaths, and unfortunately, I think their only logical mistake was generally assuming they wouldn’t get caught. But their insight into the complete and total absense of human worth was not incorrect.
I do not suggest that all Atheists must believe this, unless they are eminently applying logic and have no other axioms. If they have no other axioms and apply logic, then I submit that this is the cold, iron end.
Resuscitation attempts are made because the person is dead. That should tell you.
First-hand, eye-witness accounts are good enough for our judicial system and good enough for the general public. The only time they are not good enough for skeptics is when they counter skeptic beliefs.
I will not argue the validity of personal experiences with you except to say everything we learn during our lives comes from personal experience, if not ours, then from others who write the books and do the research.
.
Near death experiences are convincing many people. There is more interest in them every year. The most important people they are convincing are the research scientists studing them. They are named “near death experiences” because that is what Dr. Raymond Moody decided to call them in his first book. They are actually death experiences.
Yes, I know about all the other experiences where people don’t die, but if you wish to discuss them, one at a time please.
Damn what a sig line that would make 
Or even a country song. (What rhymes with “Neanderthal miscarriage”… “Leander’s all-piss marriage”- “Cassandra’s all disparaged”- “the cantor’s mall bliss pairage”- needs some work, but with Trisha Yearwood and maybe a ditital Johnny Cash attached it could make one helluva duet.)
Nonsense. No one dies and comes back; all NDEs are near death experiences. They convince people because people want hope for an afterlife in a universe that offers none. That doesn’t make it true, nor does it make NDE’s anything other than hallucinations - at best.
Instead of directly answering the OP question, here is some fiction which I think will show what I think on this subject.
Jack 
Picture if you will two of our distant forefathers running across the African Savannah;
Og: Must run away from Big Cat!
Tog: Must run away from Big Cat!
Lion: Mmm, fresh meat on two legs!
Tog: Hey let’s climb this tree!
Og: You crazy, let’s keep running!
Tog quickly climbs tree and Og keeps running across the Savannah.
Lion: Grrr… Lost one, but hey still one left on the ground.
Og: Cat is getting very close, maybe Tog was right! CRUNCH!
Lion: Mmmm, fresh meat!
Meanwhile in the tree, Tog looks on as Og’s time on earth ends as cat food.
Tog: Poor Og…
Tat: Hello…
Tog: Oh, hello, didn’t know someone else was in tree.
Tat: Yes, was hiding from Big Cat.
Tog: Big Cat ate Og!
Tat: I see that, so then he can not make babies with me.
Tog: Yes very difficult to make babies when you are Big Cat food.
Tat: You not Cat food, you can make babies with me.
Tog: Okay, let’s make babies after Big Cat leaves.
As they sit in the tree, watching the lion feed, it gets dark and the stars come out.
Tog: Hey look at those lights in sky. That looks a little bit like Og!
Tat: Does it? It looks like the same as the lights from last night.
Tog: No really, I think it’s Og!
Tat: I’m sure Og is about to be Big Cat shit, how could he become a light in the sky?
Tog: Maybe Big Cat was sent by Big Cat Lights over there to bring Og to the sky.
Tat: Have you been eating funny grass?
Fast forward a few thousand years.
Dionysuspartieslikeapopularmusicalperformerpoulos: Good morning!
Aphroditeisababeakles: Good morning! I see you’re adding some new columns to your temple. Hey is that a wine fountain?
Dionysuspartieslikeapopularmusicalperformerpoulos: Yes, Old man Idrinktoomuchwineippos passed away and left his fortune to the temple.
**Aphroditeisababeakles:**You certainly have a cool way of raking in the drachmae, get your flock to drink themselves silly.
Dionysuspartieslikeapopularmusicalperformerpoulos: Well, I’m sure you’ve got some perks as well. I mean deflowering virgins has got to be fun.
**Aphroditeisababeakles:**True, there is that. But partying every day, must be good too.
Dionysuspartieslikeapopularmusicalperformerpoulos: I got an idea! Let’s have a Aprodite-Dionysus day! We can just make up a story as an excuse to bring the two together and then throw a party!
**Aphroditeisababeakles:**Great idea! You provide the wine, I’ll bring the virgins. We charge 10 Drachmae cover charge and split the profits 50/50.
Dionysuspartieslikeapopularmusicalperformerpoulos: You’re on!
Fast forward another few thousand years.
Prince Ambitieux: My coffers are running dry. What happened to all my gold?
Monsieur Lèche-bottes: Prince, you spent all your gold building your new palace.
Prince Ambitieux: Yes, it was necessary, I was getting tired of the other ones.
Monsieur Lèche-bottes: Surely Sire, 15 palaces are enough.
Prince Ambitieux: For now, but now I need to replenish my gold. Let’s tax the peasants.
Monsieur Lèche-bottes: Sire you are already taxing the peasants at an exorbitant rate. They will likely starve if you tax them any higher.
Prince Ambitieux: Hmm, Have you heard of the holly land? I hear there is much treasure there, perhaps we can send my army.
Monsieur Lèche-bottes: Sire, your army was destroyed in the war against your brother Prince Goulu.
Prince Ambitieux: Ah yes, I remember. Then we shall build a new army. Recruit some peasants so we can send them to war in the holly land. I want that treasure.
Monsieur Lèche-bottes: Sire, that is a bit difficult. The peasants are reluctant to join the army.
Prince Ambitieux: Why? How dare my peasants not join my new army?
Monsieur Lèche-bottes: Sire, they appear to be suffering from reason and common sense.
Prince Ambitieux: Reason? Common sense? What do you mean?
Monsieur Lèche-bottes: Yes, sire. It seems they think joining the army is a sure way to die. Apparently, dying is not a very popular activity with the peasants.
Prince Ambitieux: I have an idea, let’s have Father Apocalyptique preach to the peasants. We’ll call this a holly war. The peasants will surely join the new army with promise of heavenly reward! Then I will have my gold!
bandit and E-Sabbath, I’m unsure as to quite where we disagree in terms of what is arbitrary and what isn’t: I consider that all human philosophies, theistic or not, must begin from arbitrarily selected axioms. What is “God exists” if not an axiom selected from alternatives, and what is “God is also good” if not an extra “hidden” axiom?
The axiom I set forth above all others is that where a natural explanation exists, a supernatural explanation is unnecessary (with admittedly additional axioms regarding what ‘counts’ as a natural explanation). I don’t think I’m doing anything underhanded, or “self-selecting”, there. In fact, I suggest that this axiom is accepted by theists in almost all aspects of their own philosophy, from explaining planetary motion (gravity, not angels) to the fossil record (evolution, not continuous creation). I simply apply it to everything where theists might apply it only selectively. I still cannot prove this interpretation of Ockham’s Razor - of course axiomatic systems cannot be used to prove themselves in this way - but if I set it forth and we all basically agree on applying it to at least part of our philosophy, the debate can move forwards.
In this light, I’ll address bandit’s rather perplexing view of what atheists consider “valuable”:
Again, I would like to talk about the cognitive science of “assigning value”. V. S. Ramachandran puts it beautifully:
So “value” or “significance” is a cognitive output which occurs in every human brain (and likely animal ones as well), just as “pain” is a near-universal brain output also. Are we to say that because they are “mere” neuropsychological processes that they are zero? That, because pain is arbitrary, it doesn’t exist?
Surely, because it occurs in all human brains, the judgement of value is a universal phenomenon. Agreed, different brains output different value judgements which cannot be predicted, but so the weather is different in different places and we cannot predict that more than a few days in advance either. We still don’t call the weather “arbitrary” - there is a natural explanation for it.
So the atheist, given that value judgement is a universal cognitive process, says which particular inputs causes his or her cognitive modules to output “high” value, such as close interaction with friends or family. Surprise surprise, he finds that everyone (save for those whose cognitive function is diminished by mental illness, such as sociopaths) outputs similar value judgements for similar friend/family inputs (or, of course, not surprising at all given our evolution). And if every healthy human attaches value to other human lives, can a morality which values human life really be said to be “arbitrary”? That seems a very odd word to use, IMO.
And so I come to quite where bandit got this odd view of atheism from:
Well, it’s a shame that you constructed such a joyless version of atheism which took no account of your neuropsychology (indeed, it sounds like the output of a brain with clinical depression or some other mental illness): no wonder you discarded it! I can only assure you that by incorporating the cognitive science of mental health into atheism, one arrives at a far less bleak philosophy, as I set forth back here in post 53. For some reason, you seem to call this “adding further axioms”, but I would disagree: to not incorporate cognitive science and psychiatry would be to arbitrarily remove an essential element of the natural explanation of our existence.
So theism is equally as meaningless as anything else, yes? After all, I suggest that neuropsychology applies to all human brains, which is “universal” in a far more verifiable way!
Bandit, I think your problem is that you confuse mechanism and meaning. For some reason you think that since atheists believe there’s nothing supernatural in the mechanism, that means there’s no reality *but * the mechanism - that there’s no meaning and no reality but neurons and circuits. But - like a chip is just a means to run a program - neuronal circuits are the means to create meaning - thoughts, values, emotions, morality, aesthetics. And to an atheist all of these “intangibles” are just as real whether they were created by god or evolution. No (thoughtful) atheist disputes their reality or thinks they’re arbitrary.
Your irrational logic concludes that unless the mechanism for creating meaning is in part supernatural, then meaning isn’t real. It’s like saying once you understand the genetic code, then the protein it codes for ceases to be real or becomes random. It just doesn’t follow.
Sorry - scratch irrational. That was harsher than I meant. Replace with “Your logic which I disagree with”
Well, I do agree with you there. What you believe or what I believe can’t alter the truth one way or the other; and what we do is more important than what we say or what we think.
Well, no. When I’m dead, I will end, but that doesn’t mean everything will end. If you believe that it is good to act to alleviate the suffering of your fellow human beings, there is no reason why you can’t go on doing so long after your death. Thomas Jefferson founded a great university, wrote laws to establish religious freedom, and helped found a great and free nation. His legacy is continuing to make the world a better place; whether or not Jefferson has long ago turned to dust, or is smiling down on us from heaven, doesn’t alter that either way.
(And yes, I know Jefferson believed in a God and that some form of afterlife was likely.)
If anything, it can be easier to act to alleviate the suffering of others after you die and cease to exist. Giving money to charity now means I have less money to spend on myself; leaving money to charity in my will doesn’t entail any sacrifice on my part at all. Giving someone one of my organs now would be a serious (possibly fatal) sacrifice; signing a little card that says that if I slip and fall in the shower and bash my head in my organs should be given to other people is no trouble whatsoever.
If there is no underlying absolute meaning, then meaning is just a mechanism then.
A mechanism for what??? Look, values, aesthetics, thoughts and morality don’t go poof and cease to exist if you discover they’re created solely by physical mechanisms. And frankly, I don’t see for the life of me what the existence of a supernatural God really adds to the equation. So God creates the meaning rather than the human mind - does that mean God gets to have the existential crisis instead of us and worry that if he created the meaning then it must be arbitrary and unreal? How does that solve your problem?
Mechanism for mental interpolations. Just as the mechanisms of the physical world interpolate physical change.
And that isn’t claimed either.
It doesn’t. I did not & am not positing theism.