patrick.net

leo707 says

You may find it interesting, or perhaps just not read it and continue to cling to your preconceived notions about atheists.

Thank you, reading it now.

michaelsch says

So, I ask you again: what is morality for you an atheist?

The same thing it would mean if I believed in a god or multiple gods. Whether or not I'm an atheist is irrelevant to what morality means. Morality is the a prior concept, not the deity. Had Satan created the universe, would his will constitute morality?

Morality is a set of principles guiding behavior to avoid and resolve conflicts of interests in social entities (typically biological but not necessarily) in a way that maximizes cooperation and happiness of all individuals while minimizing harm to any individual.

Morality was constructed by evolution, not god. And thought, not unquestioning belief in some arbitrary religious doctrine, is the only thing that can advance and refine morality.

In places where there are multiple options with varying trade-offs, different moral systems will pick different options. Some moral systems work better than others and that can be understood in detailed by examining those moral systems rationally and understanding what the real rules being enforced are as opposed to what the marketing people say the rules are.

In other words, morality is a field of engineering. You build morality like you build a bridge, using absolute mathematics and science, but with creative freedom. An illogical design will yield a bridge that collapses in the same way that it will yield a moral system that collapses. Both are failures. Both are avoided by using the same tools: math, science, logic, and rational thought. In other words, good engineering.

michaelsch says

So is there anything more than what Dan like/dislike in the term morality?

The fundamental difference between you and I is that I believe the messenger is irrelevant, and all that matters is the messenger. My morality has nothing to do with me. It is entirely objective.

You, on the other hand, see the entire universe as revolving around you and your beliefs. And that is why you can't even imagine that another person doesn't think this way.

I see myself as utterly insignificant. I see all of mankind as utterly insignificant compared to the vastness of the universe. If our species never even existed, it would have no impact other than the thin, small sphere of radio waves we've transmitted. However, I value the lives of sentient beings, natural or artificial.

The bottom line is that there are no contradictions in my morality, which is more than you can honestly say about yours. Furthermore, my morality would not be any more or less acceptable to me if my entire life was different including if things were changed like my nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and even my species. You most certainly would be less accepting of your own morality if your nationality, sexual orientation, or religion were different.

leo707 says

michaelsch says

I wanted to completely exit this BS discussion

OK, um...

...thanks for letting us know?

I assure you that he's not the only one who wants him to completely exit this discussion.

michaelsch says

leo707 says

You may find it interesting, or perhaps just not read it and continue to cling to your preconceived notions about atheists.

Thank you, reading it now.

Oh, sorry. Now I feel bad about my smart ass comment suggesting you would not read it.

leo707 says

Here is an atheist article on morality:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-science-of-morality_b_567185.html

Atheism, whether you are talking about the lack of belief in gods or the explicit disbelief in gods, doesn't itself say anything about morality. There is no "atheist" morality or doctrine.

That said, people who are atheists are so for some reason. The most popular reason is simply that they are intelligent, knowledgeable, and rational, which is why most scientists are atheists or at least closeted atheists calling themselves agnostics.

Rational, thinking people consider the question of god or gods existence and, being rational and objective, look at facts and reasoning rather than making arbitrary cultural assumptions based on where they were born and raised. Atheism is simply a conclusion, not a premise like religion. If evidence or reasoning pointed to a god or multiple gods or a giant blue penis creating the universe, then the rational person would accept that. It just so happens to be that all evidence and reasoning points to there being no possible god and that all gods including the Christian one was made up by assholes trying to gain power, wealth, and pussy.

The rationalist applies rational, objective thinking to morality as well. Since most atheists are rationalists, most atheists will apply rational, objective thinking to morality. It is no wonder than that most atheists will reach the same conclusions on morality just like they would reach the same conclusions on physics, chemistry, mathematics, and bridge building. Furthermore, it should be no more surprising that such rational people use scientific and engineering approaches to solving problems of morality. After all, this tool set has successfully solved almost all problems thrown at it, and the remaining are in the process of being solved.

When many independent thinkers come to the same conclusion with less than 1 part in a million difference in the details, chances are they are on to something. For example, if a hundred people all independently reach the same conclusion to the question, "What is the one billionth prime number?", then they are probably right.

leo707 says

Here is an atheist article on morality:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-science-of-morality_b_567185.html

In February, I spoke at the 2010 TED conference, where I briefly argued that morality should be considered an undeveloped branch of science.

Essentially that was going to be the thesis of my rant on morality that I didn't get to during the weekend I wrote my rant on abortion. The one difference in my thesis and the one above is that I would have used the term "engineering" rather than "science". Yes, there is an underlying science, but that science must be applied as an engineering discipline.

Bridge building is engineering based on science, but not science itself. Same for morality. Yes, bridge building does yield interesting physics, but it's still mechanical engineering. Same for morality. It's based on biology and game theory, but is a kind of engineering, most closely related to software engineering.

leo707 says

michaelsch says

leo707 says

You may find it interesting, or perhaps just not read it and continue to cling to your preconceived notions about atheists.

Thank you, reading it now.

Oh, sorry. Now I feel bad about my smart ass comment suggesting you would not read it.

Nevermind. The most interesting in the article is the author's need to have a scientific universal foundation for morality. As far as I went his refutation of Carroll's points seam not very convincing. It would be interesting to see what will be results of his efforts.

Certain things he writes seam very questionable: for example, "Do monkeys suffer more than mice from medical experiments? (The answer is almost surely "yes.") If so, all other things being equal, it is worse to run experiments on monkeys than on mice." You necessary run into such things, when you base morality on a measurable well being. The next step would be discovering that kids being killed suffer less than adults, so it's less immoral to kill kids. Based on your previous post you most likely would feel it's wrong.

Well, the article is very interesting and I need much more time to read all details it it several times. As I said the most valuable is that the guy feels there is a question that requires research and some kind of theory we do not have today.

Dan8267 says

For example, if a hundred people all independently reach the same conclusion to the question, "What is the one billionth prime number?", then they are probably right.

Dan! You are smarter than that. You don't need a hundred people with their "conclusion". You don't need even one. You just run a computer program that gives you your "one billionth prime number?" Just quickly wrote one, most of the time spent on cleaning my disk space. Run it to 300,000th, which is 4,256,249. Why would i need one hundred people for this?

Dan8267 says

all gods including the Christian one was made up by assholes trying to gain power, wealth, and pussy.

Yea, sure, and Dan has a proof of this scientific statement.

Dan8267 says

Atheism is simply a conclusion, not a premise like religion. If evidence or reasoning pointed to a god or multiple gods or a giant blue penis creating the universe, then the rational person would accept that.

Stop playing an idiot! Your "rational person" would simply call it a delusion. Would too many people witness such an evidence, he would try to isolate them, if necessary torture them to tell they've seen nothing, and kill those who would not agree.

Dan8267 says

leo707 says

michaelsch says

I wanted to completely exit this BS discussion

OK, um...

...thanks for letting us know?

I assure you that he's not the only one who wants him to completely exit this discussion.

Could not help but "liking" this. It's hard to define Dan's goals better.

Or maybe this is also good:

Dan8267 says

Bridge building is engineering based on science, but not science itself. Same for morality. Yes, bridge building does yield interesting physics, but it's still mechanical engineering. Same for morality. It's based on biology and game theory, but is a kind of engineering, most closely related to software engineering.

That's a very important difference between Dan and people like Sam Harris. Unlike them, Dan has no interest in science but only in social engineering.

michaelsch says

The next step would be discovering that kids being killed suffer less than adults, so it's less immoral to kill kids.

I don't know if that would be the next step or not, but sure--testing this is an eventuality in your slippery slope. However, I doubt that one could come to a measurable conclusion that killing kids suffer less than adults.

And of course you are first assuming that it is moral to kill adults and kids to satisfy this curiosity.michaelsch says

The most interesting in the article is the author's need to have a scientific universal foundation for morality.

Well, as he wrote:
"...someone else will be free to say that morality depends upon worshipping the gods of the Aztecs and that well-being entails always having a terrified person locked in one's basement, waiting to be sacrificed."

If moral "truths" are to be had I would prefer them from a more objective source. Morality based on the religion du jour (or interpretation du jour) is much less preferable to me. Just about anything can be justified through religion.

Hitler did not murder male sodomites BECAUSE they were male sodomites, he murdered them DESPITE the fact they were male sodomites, unless they were fem-male sodomites. THe fem-male sodomites were looked upon as less than human. The masculine sodomite was revered by the Nazi.

The Jews that survived the camps left a record too. Shall we trust their records of Hitler and Nazi behavior?

You guys are pretty smart. How much easier can it be then to create a law against an activity that is unseen, and then make it a habit to collect and murder those accused of that activity? The Nazi used fake laws to round up and murder lots of Hebrews. If getting the Germans to accept it by wrapping it with anti-sodomite titles, that was just the order of the day. The Nazi were pro-male/male sodomites. And Pro is an operative word here.

michaelsch says

Stop playing an idiot! Your "rational person" would simply call it a delusion. Would too many people witness such an evidence, he would try to isolate them, if necessary torture them to tell they've seen nothing, and kill those who would not agree.

Hmmmm...interesting...you mean torture and kill people who disagree? Like during the inquisition?

I think that you may be misunderstanding evidence (Hint: your belief is not evidence). If an atheist had access to actual real evidence that a god or gods exist, what motivation is there to cover it up?

You are making a very basic mistake often made by a believer when thinking of an atheist mentality. You seem to be assuming that the atheist actually secretly believes in god, but is working for the devil and will do anything to undermine the work of gods.

I am assuming you are Christian, right? Lets do a little thought experiment practicing empathy. Pretend for a moment that you acquire irrefutable evidence that Hindu gods are real and are the only gods in existence. You know that your fortune in this life, and your experience after death is directly correlated with your worship, and daily rituals desired by these gods. What do you do?

1. Deny the existence of the Hindu pantheon, torture and kill followers of gods you know to be real?

2. Accept the truth and convert?

Bap33 says

If getting the Germans to accept it by wrapping it with anti-sodomite titles, that was just the order of the day.

Right, I am glad we finally agree the Nazi's official platform was anti-gay.

It is just a bonus that we also seem to agree that an anti-gay platform is a good political tool to get people to go along with the most abhorrent of human behaviors.

An anti-gay platform got you on board with the idea of a Mormon president, right? How abhorrent is the idea of a Mormon president to you?

But of course, wanting children to go to church, and have certain ideas drummed in their head about Jewish Carpenters and the beliefs of Bronze Age Goatroasters isn't social engineering, right?

LOL.

If this is immoral, then I'm for immorality

bdrasin says

If this is immoral, then I'm for immorality

Actually that example illustrates an obvious flaw in Bap's pseudo-morality. Dan is better with the vocabulary of logical arguments, and I think he would call it "reductio ad absurdum." That is, if a purported "moral" rule leads to a conclusion that the video is immoral, then the purported rule itself is obviously absurd and wrong.

If watchin' girls lovin' girls is wrong, I don't want to be right!

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ExG7Ut6DJ1E

leo707 says

Right, I am glad we finally agree the Nazi's official platform was anti-gay.

no, their platform was domination of mankind, extermination of Hebrews, and Obama/Holder style rule. They mounted other males, sometime for fun, sometime by force. THat is a historical FACT. And they did this as an expression of what made them a NAZI. Like, a Christian would be seen going to church, praying, staying sober, and not cussing out the milkman. The actions of both have certian expectations. For Nazi, it was male/male coupling. If you suggest that is not "gay behavior", then you need to give me the correct vocabulary to use.

Bap33 says

their platform was domination of mankind, extermination of Hebrews...

Right, but to sell this platform they "wrapped" it in anti-gay, just like Romney, the GOP and right-wing christian groups do to sell their platforms.

Just as you said:
Bap33 says

If getting the Germans to accept [Nazism] by wrapping it with anti-sodomite titles, that was just the order of the day.

Bap33 says

They mounted other males, sometime for fun, sometime by force. THat is a historical FACT.

*Ahem*, bap...I hate to be the one to break it to you, but those "historical records" you are getting all hot-and-bothered watching might not be as "historical" as you think. Hint: they did not have color video in the 1930-40s, and Nazis did not wear tear-a-way uniforms.

Bap33 says

Like, a Christian would be seen going to church, praying, staying sober, and not cussing out the milkman. The actions of both have certian expectations. For Nazi, it was male/male coupling.

So, you are saying that by the very nature of being a Nazi fills one with an irresistible desire for man-on-man action?

Leo, you are arguing with a troll who is a total waste of time. He knows nothing about morality and can only repeat (and attempt to validate) the doctrine that has imprisoned him. Just like Larry Craig, he has sacrificed the life to which he was naturally inclined, upon the altar of a false doctrine, and having made that wasteful sacrifice he cannot go back. You might as well argue with the ghost of Michael Jackson, who at least had talent, or a bull that has been burnt on an altar.

But color video did exist in the 1930s, see The Wizard of Oz (1939). [Corrected - see below - I hadn't distinguished between video and film.]

As for the troll, the only solution is to deny recognition. Having given him enough rope to make a fool of himself, which he has amply done, there is nothing further to see here.

After numerous attempts to move the conversation from male gay sex to female gay sex, I can help but wonder what baps fascination is with male gay sex. Let's focus on female gay sex,,,id like to hear what the bloody hell is wrong with two hot, naked, sweaty and ready, dripping wet females getting it on with eachother in the privacy of my bedroom?

...i stand corrected and yield to errc, who has pointed out that there may be something further to see here.

curious2 says

Leo, you are arguing with a troll who is a total waste of time...Having given him enough rope to make a fool of himself, which he has amply done, there is nothing further to see here.

*Sigh* Yeah, you are right. OK, no more rope.

curious2 says

But color video did exist in the 1930s, see The Wizard of Oz (1939).

The Wizard of Oz (1939) was shot on film. Video technology was not invented until the 1950's. I probably should not have said color at all, just video.

michaelsch says

Dan! You are smarter than that. You don't need a hundred people with their "conclusion". You don't need even one. You just run a computer program that gives you your "one billionth prime number?"

You just completely missed the point of what I was saying. Hint: I wasn't talking about prime numbers.

michaelsch says

Dan8267 says

all gods including the Christian one was made up by assholes trying to gain power, wealth, and pussy.

Yea, sure, and Dan has a proof of this scientific statement.

Jesus was not a white guy. He was brown.

Jesus was not born on December 25th. This myth was created to trick pagans who celebrated the Winter Solstice into replacing it with Christmas.

Jesus was not born of a virgin. That myth was stolen from many pagan god-virgin-offspring myths.

The Christian patron saints were created as substitutes for Roman house gods.

There is as much reason to believe in Christian mythology as to believe in Islamic mythology or Hindu mythology. Anyone who says that one set of myths is more likely true than another is simply prejudice. They are all equally ridiculous and unsupported.

michaelsch says

Stop playing an idiot! Your "rational person" would simply call it a delusion. Would too many people witness such an evidence, he would try to isolate them, if necessary torture them to tell they've seen nothing, and kill those who would not agree.

Once again, you entirely miss the point. And it wasn't a hard point to understand.

michaelsch says

That's a very important difference between Dan and people like Sam Harris. Unlike them, Dan has no interest in science but only in social engineering.

Dude, you have no idea what interests I have, and your comments prove it. I suspect that Sam Harris and I agree on most things and that you disagree with most of what he believes.

leo707 says

You seem to be assuming that the atheist actually secretly believes in god, but is working for the devil and will do anything to undermine the work of gods.

Such a person would, of course, not be an atheist, but rather a monotheist.

liberal intollerance rears it's ugly head again .... this time including name calling and sexual diviant references. Color me suprized.

Bap33 says

liberal intollerance rears it's ugly head again .... this time including name calling and sexual diviant references. Color me suprized.

Perhaps you would find this thread more enlightening:
http://patrick.net/?p=1219196

leo707 says

So, you are saying that by the very nature of being a Nazi fills one with an irresistible desire for man-on-man action?

Leo, there are times when I think Bap is beyond hope. You, I, and the rest of the world sees this

And Bap sees this

A person using that kind of filtered view on history cannot be persuaded with facts.

Bap33 says

liberal intollerance rears it's ugly head again .... this time including name calling and sexual diviant references. Color me suprized.

Sorry, mom, didn't mean to offend you,,,,but you better not be calling me liberal or intollerant,,,,thems is fighting words.

Back to the matter at hand, what is wrong with two consenting, smoking hot, dripping wet females having their way with one another in the privacy of my bedroom? Try not to think about male+male gay butt sex coupling, because I agree with you, that sounds pretty gross. Let's focus on the other side of homosexuality. I'm interested to know what's so wrong with something that just feels so right?

Because if we were to attribute something to Gods work, id top the list with the beauty of a woman. Now times it by two and parlay it with multiple squirting orgasms, biting, clawing, moaning and licking,,,,,

Just to put the whole gay Nazi thing to rest, if anyone believes that crap, just read The History of the Gay Male and Lesbian Experience during World War II. There's a reason why the pink triangle is a symbol of the gay rights movement today. It's origins are much uglier.

I find that pretty girls kissing and doing stuff to each other is amazing. Like I can't stop watching and at that moment everything in the world is good and right.

I also find that when two men have sex with each other, one or the other is gonna wind up with a stinky pee pee.

That is all.

dodgerfanjohn says

I find that pretty girls kissing and doing stuff to each other is amazing. Like I can't stop watching and at that moment everything in the world is good and right.

I also find that when two men have sex with each other, one or the other is gonna wind up with a stinky pee pee.

That is all.

Oh, I'm right there with you. But I don't pretend my own tastes in "yummy" vs "ick" is the difference between moral and immoral.

There is something wholly unnatural about being turned off by hot lesbian sex, no?

Dan8267 says

Jesus was not a white guy. He was brown.

Jesus was not born on December 25th. This myth was created to trick pagans who celebrated the Winter Solstice into replacing it with Christmas.

Jesus was not born of a virgin. That myth was stolen from many pagan god-virgin-offspring myths.

I agreed with most of what you said within this thread, but when someone tries to convince others that they know so much about the details of Jesus, I need to second guess everything I've agreed with up to now, lol.

BayArea says

so much about the details....

The color surprised me too. There isn't proof of actual human existence, and there is considerable evidence against, so where did the color come from?

BayArea says

I agreed with most of what you said within this thread, but when someone tries to convince others that they know so much about the details of Jesus, I need to second guess everything I've agreed with up to now, lol.

There's nothing I've said that can't be confirmed with a simple Google search. Feel free to search for things like:

When was Jesus born?
Christmas and the Winter Solstice
pagan virgin birth myths

Just make sure to skip over Wikipedia crap.

As for why I know so much about Christian history despite being an atheist, I went to Christian schools for the first 18 years of my life and had to study that shit in great detail. There is no more boring course in the world than Church History.

errc says

After numerous attempts to move the conversation from male gay sex to female gay sex, I can help but wonder what baps fascination is with male gay sex. Let's focus on female gay sex,,,id like to hear what the bloody hell is wrong with two hot, naked, sweaty and ready, dripping wet females getting it on with eachother in the privacy of my bedroom?

The only thing that could be wrong with this is not being in the middle ;)

curious2 says

BayArea says

so much about the details....

The color surprised me too. There isn't proof of actual human existence, and there is considerable evidence against, so where did the color come from?

None of those comments surprised me. Yes, there is no proof of actual human existence, but! if he did exist then he was most likely brown. Just like everyone else from the area at that time.

It is widely known that the "true" birth date of Jesus is not in December, and the Christmas celebration is pagan in origin. It is one of the reasons that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Christmas.

Yes, the virgin birth is a common myth, and if Jesus was an actual person he was not born of a virgin.

I would not call any of Dan's comments "details", but rather assumptions based on general knowledge of middle eastern heritage 2000 years ago, origins of Christian holidays, and biology.