Atheists and the Dictatorship of Relativism

[dagon]

The first and third links say essentially what I said earlier, that changes occur due to physical things that happen to the genes, but not at the kind of level that could preserve something like memories.  In fact, it is stated in there that somatic memory, such as the memories carried in the brains of animals, are not passed on.  The second link, I need to spend more time on, but my first impression is that it is highly speculative, not solidly based on real science, and I don't buy it.

oh sorry!  the wikipedia links also send you to the the actual science that was performed.  my apologies if i wasn't clear.

peace

[SpaceCadet]

no offense SC, but i might know enough to know that "most" recognize the process but they don't know the specifics.  no one knows what exactly is passed through our DNA stream;  the focus is on disease but memory could be a component as well and a logical one.

we're still very new.

peace

Ok, well I don't want to stomp on your religion too hard, so I'll drop it at this point.

[SpaceCadet]

oh sorry!  the wikipedia links also send you to the the actual science that was performed.  my apologies if i wasn't clear.

peace

I'll check those out.  Thanks.

[johnhp]

religious organizations do a lot of good.  they also do a lot of bad. 

Unfortunately the bad gets a lot of press (as it should) but the good not enough.  i really think if we discussed good things religion did (clothe the naked, feed the poor, tend to the ill, etc) we would see a lot more of work on the good.  These stories are usually relegated to Xmas and Thanksgiving.

mainly, i just think religious fervor is a colossal waste of human brainpower and potential.  people spend YEARS trying to interpret the arcana of what most scholars agree were haphazardly (or even cravenly) cobbled together stories created by MEN and give them some sort of divine merit.

i am not sure if fervor, let's be honest and call it fanaticism, is a waste of either brain power or potential.  Face it, does it require that much brain power to "think" like this Voris idiot?  And what potential for building up society does this guy really have?  He, and the idiots that promote and fall for his shit, are wastes of skin.

i'm not talking about you john (i know you appreciate the historical and relative significance of what you do).

believe me, i know.

the point is, obsessives like mornac are missing the experience of life;  i love that i don't know what this all means.  i love the fact that we make more discoveries about existence every year.  really,  the moon and stars, the water and the trees, and the fish...are enough.

peace

It is amazing stuff.

[IM2]

SC,

The hypothesis that the divine presence is "put there by God" during an experiment is not scientific.  It cannot be tested.  It is also a rather silly hypothesis, to imagine that God would bother to implant a feeling of a divine presence during an experiment, time after time.  Such an idea is in the same vein as imagining that the Earth was created by God 6,000 years ago and that this God implanted the fossils and created the starlight from stars that are located billions of light-year away, in transit, as some sort of colossal practical joke.  But still, if you are set on believing that, no amount of scientific inquiry will change your mind.

You choose to believe there is no God, and thats your choice and I can respect that. I understood what you meant from the start.  You can make a lot of things happen in the brain. But the thing about science is that its man made, science is not the end all or be all of knowledge. There are things science does not explain. Thats just the reality we all need to understand. Many of the things that were written in the bible as prophecies have come to pass. Science cannot explain that.

Finally man made things are also going to hold man made biases. If you don't believe in God, then the experiment you point out means that the concept of God is made up. If you do believe in God, the experiment means that your brain is naturally in tune with the spiritual.   All science does for me is convince me of the existence of God.

[Mornac]

I suppose you could say that, when it comes to something like economics.

--The mere fact that you use a phrase like “when it comes to something like…” qualifies your morality as relativist in its entirety.

It depends on the perspective, I suppose.

--So does that phrase.

Morality is basically not harming others, and helping others where you can.

--So atheists are anti-abortion? Or are there certain others that they don’t mind harming if it’s for their own convenience.

Treat others as you would have them treat you, i.e. do not harm others.

--This is out then I take it:

I think those links are fixed, but you could also put it into one question, if you can.

--Read ‘em and, while they make a case for why atheists choose morality (that is to say the morality largely defined by Judeo-Christianity), they do not say why it would be wrong for an atheist to choose a different code of morality. If I had to condense my above ideas into a single question it would be this:

An atheist reflects on the history of humanity and sees that it involves more suffering at any given time then it does happiness or even mere contentment. As he considers the continuum of human existence, he concludes that things will always be this way (or at least thay will be this way so long that the inordinate amount of suffering is unbearable to ponder. A scientific type, this atheist devises a method for wiping out all of humanity in a single coup. He is moved by empathy to launch his plan as a means of ending human suffering for once and for all. He acts out of what he perceives as virtue. Do you fault him?

Treat others as you would have them treat you, i.e. do not harm others.

--So starving this woman to death is out too?

I believe they're fixed.

--They are. Thank you.

Let's both endeavor to not do this then.

--Can’t do it. You have nothing to loose by accepting that proposition but I’m obliged to offer salvation to my fellow man and I won’t shirk my duty. I write off the assault of secularism as penance and call it a wash.

[SpaceCadet]

--The mere fact that you use a phrase like “when it comes to something like…” qualifies your morality as relativist in its entirety.

Ok.  Have it your way.

--So does that phrase.

don't know what that means.

--So atheists are anti-abortion? Or are there certain others that they don’t mind harming if it’s for their own convenience.

As is the case with most groups, I imagine some are and some aren't.

--This is out then I take it:

A fetus is not a person, as far as I'm concerned, at least before a certain stage of development.

--Read ‘em and, while they make a case for why atheists choose morality (that is to say the morality largely defined by Judeo-Christianity), they do not say why it would be wrong for an atheist to choose a different code of morality. If I had to condense my above ideas into a single question it would be this:

An atheist reflects on the history of humanity and sees that it involves more suffering at any given time then it does happiness or even mere contentment. As he considers the continuum of human existence, he concludes that things will always be this way (or at least thay will be this way so long that the inordinate amount of suffering is unbearable to ponder. A scientific type, this atheist devises a method for wiping out all of humanity in a single coup. He is moved by empathy to launch his plan as a means of ending human suffering for once and for all. He acts out of what he perceives as virtue. Do you fault him?

Well, he would be doing harm to those other people, wouldn't he?  He would not be obtaining their consent to end what he perceived to be their suffering.  He would simply be some pathological wierdo with a crazy idea.

But, an alien race, for instance, could have an entirely different idea of morality.  It's possible, and even likely, that morality is a human invention, and that there is no "universal" standard - or even concept - of morality.

--So starving this woman to death is out too?

Yes, it is to me.

--They are. Thank you.
--Can’t do it. You have nothing to loose by accepting that proposition but I’m obliged to offer salvation to my fellow man and I won’t shirk my duty. I write off the assault of secularism as penance and call it a wash.

Well, I'll just have to go back to ignoring you then.

[SpaceCadet]

Additionally, I would hazard to guess, without taking the time to research it, that the specifics of morality are not universal even across the entire planet Earth.

[Mornac]

Ok.  Have it your way.

--It’s not my way. It’s the way of the semantics of the English language. I didn’t design the language. I only abide by its rules.

don't know what that means.

--It means that, that phrase also qualifies your morality as relativist in its entirety.

As is the case with most groups, I imagine some are and some aren't.

--Except for groups whose morality is well defined.

A fetus is not a person, as far as I'm concerned, at least before a certain stage of development.

--"(A)s far as I'm concerned?" Does that make it an indisputable fact, or is it possible that you're wrong and harm is being done to others with your blessing?

Well, he would be doing harm to those other people, wouldn't he?

--No. If his method of destruction was instantaneous those other people would cease to exist before they had the time to judge what was happening to them. There one second, gone the next.

He would not be obtaining their consent to end what he perceived to be their suffering.

--First, it isn’t necessarily “their suffering” he is concerned with. Rather it is the suffering of future generations of mankind. Those who perish in an instant have no perception or recollection (in the atheist paradigm) of their own demise. On the other hand,, those who would have been born into a lifetime of misery will never exist to experience it. It’s a win-win for the empathetic, virtuous atheist (not to mention  the jillions of people who were destined for short lives of hunger, disease, or just plain unending labor).    

He would simply be some pathological wierdo with a crazy idea.

--That’s a harsh judgment of someone who made a courageous maneuver based on virtue. What happened to “depends on the perspective”? Doesn’t he have the same claim to perspective that you accord others? I trust you’re starting to grasp the concept of the “dictatorship of relativism” that the commentator was speaking of in the video.

But, an alien race, for instance, could have an entirely different idea of morality.  It's possible, and even likely, that morality is a human invention, and that there is no "universal" standard - or even concept - of morality.

--So as an atheist picking and choosing your morality according to your “perspective”, you may well be wasting your efforts doing nothing of import?

Yes, it is to me.

--Do you have any condemnation for atheists (or other relativists) who are indifferent to such people?

Well, I'll just have to go back to ignoring you then.

--That’s okay. As I said earlier, I simply put information out for people to peruse if they wish. There’s no obligation to even look at it.

[Mornac]

Additionally, I would hazard to guess, without taking the time to research it, that the specifics of morality are not universal even across the entire planet Earth.

--For relativists, that’s true. However, the specifics of morality are universal in the Catholic Church which is present across the entire planet Earth.

[SpaceCadet]

--It’s not my way. It’s the way of the semantics of the English language. I didn’t design the language. I only abide by its rules.
--It means that, that phrase also qualifies your morality as relativist in its entirety.

I meant that if you want to term my morality as relativist, then that's okay with me.  Looking at the wide expanse of the universe, and even different cultures on this planet, morality is fundamentally relative.  It's only a relative constant across the Western world, just to name the dominant culture that we're most familiar with.  But atheist morality, as most morality, basically precludes harming other people.

--Except for groups whose morality is well defined.

dogmatic

--"(A)s far as I'm concerned?" Does that make it an indisputable fact, or is it possible that you're wrong and harm is being done to others with your blessing?

As you're no doubt aware, there is a lot of debate about that.

--No. If his method of destruction was instantaneous those other people would cease to exist before they had the time to judge what was happening to them. There one second, gone the next.

It would still be causing them harm.

--First, it isn’t necessarily “their suffering” he is concerned with. Rather it is the suffering of future generations of mankind. Those who perish in an instant have no perception or recollection (in the atheist paradigm) of their own demise. On the other hand,, those who would have been born into a lifetime of misery will never exist to experience it. It’s a win-win for the empathetic, virtuous atheist (not to mention  the jillions of people who were destined for short lives of hunger, disease, or just plain unending labor).    

You may have a point.  Of course, this sort of thing will eventually happen naturally anyway.

--That’s a harsh judgment of someone who made a courageous maneuver based on virtue. What happened to “depends on the perspective”? Doesn’t he have the same claim to perspective that you accord others? I trust you’re starting to grasp the concept of the “dictatorship of relativism” that the commentator was speaking of in the video.

That earlier comment was regarding economics and taxation, a subject not quite so clearcut as mass murder.  Hopefully you can see the difference.

--So as an atheist picking and choosing your morality according to your “perspective”, you may well be wasting your efforts doing nothing of import?

From a universal perspective?  Absolutely.  Human concepts of morality only matter to humans.  And that may be the big distinction that needs to be made.  Morality is not some universal constant.  It is defined by humans, practiced by humans only on other humans, and matters only to humans.  So an atheist, or anyone else, who wiped out all of humanity would be committing the ultimate act of immoral behavior, I suppose.

--Do you have any condemnation for atheists (or other relativists) who are indifferent to such people?

Yes.  I did then, and I do now.

--That’s okay. As I said earlier, I simply put information out for people to peruse if they wish. There’s no obligation to even look at it.[/quote]
Good.  Then we have an understanding.

[SpaceCadet]

--For relativists, that’s true. However, the specifics of morality are universal in the Catholic Church which is present across the entire planet Earth.

How wonderful for you.   

[SpaceCadet]

Actually, with all of the different faith systems in existence, all morality is fundamentally relative.  At least with a rational basis, it can be based on something solid.

[Velleity]

Actually, with all of the different faith systems in existence, all morality is fundamentally relative.  At least with a rational basis, it can be based on something solid.

Perception of our very being is relative. Our physical being is mostly empty space. We only perceive ourselves and our environment relative to our senses, which we know to be severely limited.

Please excuse the use of the word "we", as I know that this doesn't include Mornac or Observer or their kind.

[JC]

--For relativists, that’s true. However, the specifics of morality are universal in the Catholic Church which is present across the entire planet Earth.

And where does the child fucking, the denial and coverups and all fit into this equation? Can you tell us that?