Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

[Valjean]

But it does mean that brain scans and seritonin levels are not proof that love is material. Those only measure the effects of love. I hear you, and I understand you're uninterested. I won't push further, except to say, that a claim "we are spiritual beings" cannot be so easily hand waved away.

But are these the effects of love, or vice versa?

 

[F1fan]

But it does mean that brain scans and seritonin levels are not proof that love is material. Those only measure the effects of love. I hear you, and I understand you're uninterested. I won't push further, except to say, that a claim "we are spiritual beings" cannot be so easily hand waved away.

This reminds me of those who insist "mind" is not material. But mind and love are both abstact concepts that include a host of brain functions. That is material. There is no love in regards to a corpse. Why? If love is immaterial why is it tied to working brains? The same with a mind, it is a set of functions that working, material brains perform, and there is no example of either outside of working brains.

 

[DNB]

Other animals likely will experience similar emotions, which would show similar activation areas and tracks in PET scans or fMRI, but they lack the communication and social skills to communicate these and incorporate them into common mythologies or religions.

Have you ever met or seen a buddhist cat, a muslim dog or fish, have you ever seen an eagle with a yarmulke on its head, or a camel with a crucifix around its neck?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Did you just generalize the entire human race as sharing your perspective and approach to life?

No .. I'm just saying that I cannot imagine people going around thinking such thoughts, while they go about their daily lives.

For all intents and purposes, we have a mind .. however it is "generated".

spiritual: relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
"I'm responsible for his spiritual welfare"

 

[Valjean]

Have you ever met or seen a buddhist cat, a muslim dog or fish, have you ever seen an eagle with a yarmulke on its head, or a camel with a crucifix around its neck?

Like I said, animals don't have the communication skills or technology to organize religions. This doesn't rule out the perceptions or qualia that would underlie religiosity.

 

[dybmh]

But are these the effects of love, or vice versa?

The effects. If someone loves you, and it annoys you, I would expect it to cause a different effect. And, for the person if their love is unrequited, and they know it annoys you, that will have a different effect on them. Serotonin and brain scans show an effect, not the cause.

 

[dybmh]

This reminds me of those who insist "mind" is not material. But mind and love are both abstact concepts that include a host of brain functions. That is material. There is no love in regards to a corpse. Why? If love is immaterial why is it tied to working brains? The same with a mind, it is a set of functions that working, material brains perform, and there is no example of either outside of working brains.

Well. It depends on how material is defined, it depends on how love is defined. But let's ignore that, because it would make the conversation extremely tedious. And it's already off-topic.

Even if a corpse cannot actively love in a conventional sense, that doesn't mean that while it's alive the love it has behaves in a way that matches other material phenomena.

A very very super smart person on here said something which sticks with me. He said, defintions are good as long as they are useful.

In my view, defining love as material isn't useful. It doesn't behave like material phenomena, so why define it as such? Atheists and materialists might enjoy defining that way because it bolsters their position, and that feels good. Or perhaps they see religion and irrational thinking as harmful and they define love as material in a way to forward that goal. I can understand that. There's other reasons too, of course.

But logically, academically, does it make sense to take 1 phenomena ( corpses don't actively express love for other human beings ) and have that over rule the other phenomena which make its behavior non-material while that corpse is alive?

 

[F1fan]

Well. It depends on how material is defined, it depends on how love is defined. But let's ignore that, because it would make the conversation extremely tedious. And it's already off-topic.

Even if a corpse cannot actively love in a conventional sense, that doesn't mean that while it's alive the love it has behaves in a way that matches other material phenomena.

A very very super smart person on here said something which sticks with me. He said, defintions are good as long as they are useful.

In my view, defining love as material isn't useful.

Is your view useful beyond yourself? By that I mean objectively. We examine and understand the universe objectively, and try to avoid filtering the process through our bias and views.

It doesn't behave like material phenomena, so why define it as such? Atheists and materialists might enjoy defining that way because it bolsters their position, and that feels good. Or perhaps they see religion and irrational thinking as harmful and they define love as material in a way to forward that goal. I can understand that. There's other reasons too, of course.

The "materialists" don't make supernatural assumptions, so could that be the reason you see a problem with it?

But logically, academically, does it make sense to take 1 phenomena ( corpses don't actively express love for other human beings ) and have that over rule the other phenomena which make its behavior non-material while that corpse is alive?

We have good working definitions for "material". Science works well with material, and making predictions that are reliable and verifiable. Assuming some sort of immaterial accomplishes what? I'm more interested in what you mean by "immaterial", because for we humans that is synonymous with imaginary. It's odd that you pass on what this word means in your usage since you brought it up.

 

[DNB]

Like I said, animals don't have the communication skills or technology to organize religions. This doesn't rule out the perceptions or qualia that would underlie religiosity.

For the sake of this argument, religion is belief in a supernatural and transcendent power. Compare man's incontrovertible proof of the spiritual dimension within his constitution, with that of any non-human. Tell me if you think that both are religious - assuming that you understand the implications of being religious..

 

[dybmh]

Is your view useful beyond yourself? By that I mean objectively. We examine and understand the universe objectively, and try to avoid filtering the process through our bias and views.

Well, I think so / thought so. For the past 18+ years I've worked solo, so I don't really need many interpersonal skills to get by. But back when I worked in an office, my specialty was working with difficult people, helping them with computer problems, transitioning them to new computers and software. I did a lot of stuff, but that was where I really shined.

The secret of my success involved relating to each person I was working with, making them feel valued, and valuing their feelings. Considering emotions as spiritual adds value to them, reducing them to neurochemistry reduces their value. So yes, I think it's useful. Is it objective? I don't know, I think that's a little too much to expect from my own personal experiences.

The "materialists" don't make supernatural assumptions, so could that be the reason you see a problem with it?

No. Not at all. But you've said something interesting. "... don't make supernatural assumptions", but assumptions about the natural world are somehow ok? That would be a double standard, kind of hypocritical.

We have good working definitions for "material". Science works well with material, and making predictions that are reliable and verifiable. Assuming some sort of immaterial accomplishes what? I'm more interested in what you mean by "immaterial", because for we humans that is synonymous with imaginary. It's odd that you pass on what this word means in your usage since you brought it up.

Riiiiight, immaterial is imaginary. Trust, teamwork, justice, sympathy, curiosity, awe, boredom, comedy, family ... all of these are imaginary. These are arguably the most important parts of life, and for you they are imaginary. I find that hard to believe.

And, I did provide my definition of immaterial, but I didn't do it formally. As I said, this is off-topic. So no, not "odd". Getting bogged down in definitions is tedious. But, I'll restate.

Material phenomena can be measured, they behave in predictable ways, and break down over time.
Spiritual phenomena can't be measured, don't behave in predictable ways, and don't break down over time.
Meta-physical has some aspects of material, and some aspects of spiritual.

It doesn't work in every single case. Time for instance I know is material, but, saying it breaks down over time is a little wierd. I don't know enough about phenomena on a quantum scale, so those may be outliers.

 

[F1fan]

Well, I think so / thought so. For the past 18+ years I've worked solo, so I don't really need many interpersonal skills to get by. But back when I worked in an office, my specialty was working with difficult people, helping them with computer problems, transitioning them to new computers and software. I did a lot of stuff, but that was where I really shined.

The secret of my success involved relating to each person I was working with, making them feel valued, and valuing their feelings. Considering emotions as spiritual adds value to them, reducing them to neurochemistry reduces their value. So yes, I think it's useful. Is it objective? I don't know, I think that's a little too much to expect from my own personal experiences.

Do you have any training in science? Or even logic or debate? I ask because these teach about how to think objectively, and how to avoid bias. We humans are naturally emotional, but we are not naturally rational. We have to learn cognitive tools to think skillfully. Once a person acquires langauge they can form abstract thoughts and can think, but thinking is not reasoning. It is easy to develop bad thinking habits and not be aware the process isn't reason.

No. Not at all. But you've said something interesting. "... don't make supernatural assumptions", but assumptions about the natural world are somehow ok? That would be a double standard, kind of hypocritical.

We don't have to assume natural exists, it is there to see. We are even part of it. We only have to assume a supernatural because by definition we can't determine it existing. So no hypocrisy. Science is the examination of what we can observe, and that is nature.

Riiiiight, immaterial is imaginary. Trust, teamwork, justice, sympathy, curiosity, awe, boredom, comedy, family ... all of these are imaginary. These are arguably the most important parts of life, and for you they are imaginary. I find that hard to believe.

So you are referring to abstrations and emotions as immaterial. The thing is we feel awe. Teamwork is a work that describes certain behaviors. Boredom is an experience. These are all nouns. Nouns are words that refer to people, places, and things.

And, I did provide my definition of immaterial, but I didn't do it formally. As I said, this is off-topic. So no, not "odd". Getting bogged down in definitions is tedious. But, I'll restate.

Material phenomena can be measured, they behave in predictable ways, and break down over time.
Spiritual phenomena can't be measured, don't behave in predictable ways, and don't break down over time.
Meta-physical has some aspects of material, and some aspects of spiritual.

It doesn't work in every single case. Time for instance I know is material, but, saying it breaks down over time is a little wierd. I don't know enough about phenomena on a quantum scale, so those may be outliers.

You don't mention any actual definition. Are you using spiritual and immaterial synonymously? If so, you consider boredom as immaterial, thus spiritual. Does that make any sense?

Even with this crude definition it doesn't really seem that immaterial is accurate and useful, because the words you select above do have very material relationships to our lives.

 

[Valjean]

For the sake of this argument, religion is belief in a supernatural and transcendent power. Compare man's incontrovertible proof of the spiritual dimension within his constitution, with that of any non-human. Tell me if you think that both are religious - assuming that you understand the implications of being religious..

Interesting question. I don't know whether other animals would have a concrete belief in the supernatural or a transcendent being, but I wouldn't rule out a perception of the numinous or a feeling of awe and wonder in certain situations, and it's these that likely underlie the later development of concrete beliefs.

 

[Valjean]

you said 'For most of our history, the unfamiliar; the Other, was a potential, existential threat.'

How is that racism? It's a tenet of anthropology and psychology, and applies to all humans, regardless of race, tribe or region.
How are you defining 'racism'?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You wouldn't know what morality was if it wasn't for a non-secular entity to define it.

That's as false as it is stupid.

My remark was to be taken in context - the Legislator is not above His own laws for the sake of justifying the laws. But, if He choses not to enact a law, then, yes, He is free to do as He sees fit.

The second sentence is in direct contradiction with the first.

This is obviously hypothetical for I am referring to His sovereignty more so, than any sense of righteousness, at the moment, obviously.

For obvious reasons.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here's a rebuttal that I'm quite convinced that even you won't understand - I'll even put money on it.
The landslide majority of people, cultures societies, that have ever lived on this planet did not practice, or even endorse, alchemy. Whereas religion they did.

First, it's very dishonest of you to lump all religions on one pile, while the vast majority of them are UTTERLY incompatible.

Second, if you're going to lump them all together, then you might as well include all other superstitious beliefs to that pile. Like horoscopes, homeopathy, crystal healings, tarrot card readers, fortune tellers and... yes, alchemy.

Third, the point I made clearly went flying high above your head. My point wasn't about alchemy. It was a reply to your point that "there has to be something to religion" and thus not just be "figments of the imagination" because so much money, energy and hours were invested into it. I was exposing the flaw in that thinking by illustrating that Newton, arguably one of the most intelligent people in recent history, did just that: invest MOST of his life into a figment of the imagination. If the "alchemy" part takes you off track, you can just as well use something else. Like Aztec religion. How many lives were sacrificed to appease those gods? Sacrificing a life is like the ultimate investment. Surely you agree that Aztec gods are figments of the imagination and sacrificing a life to appease those gods is nonsense, right?

Ow well. I don't have high hopes that you'll get the point this time. Likely you'll find some other irrelevant thing to complain about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your avatar is repulsive, seriously.

Your attempts at dodging the points made is pathetic, seriously.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheists are shallow, they lack perception and depth of thought.

Theists are juvenile. They lack rational thinking and are superstitious to boot.

See? I can make ridiculous generalizations that are neither here nor there also.

The fact that you can't determine what the influence in man is that compels him to be racist, again, despite his intellectual capacity, precludes the option that you may, even momentarily, comprehend the implications of such a dynamic in man.

It's called tribalism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No Ella, you clearly, clearly do not comprehend what is being demonstrated here. It is utterly frustrating reading your flippant and almost clichéd responses, to such an enigma of life - man's ability to behave in a manner 10x more absurd than any other creature, that has a fraction of his intellectual faculties.

The ironic part of your posts is that they exhibit "flippant" tribalism on your part, more so then anything else.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Have you ever heard of the KKK, what about them - just a bunch of sweet guys, but who are victims of xenophobia?

You mean those guys who defend their "flippant" behavior by waving their bibles?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The faculties have to be there for any development to take place - no matter how long we wait, and with all the religious practices exposed in life, animals will never have the capacity to be religious.

I already brought it to your attention that the vast majority of animals have a tendency to develop superstitious beliefs.

You replied to that post, but all you said in response to it was complaining about my avatar.