How Are Atheists or Secularists Harming You, Your Kids or Your Country?

[icehorse]

So Christians say pi = 3, and secularists insist it's 3.14..... Should we have one class teaching each plus a third teaching a 3.07 compromise?

Oh come on, who needs circles to be round?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You know what I am talking about. The focus shifts from the spirit of the kids, towards producing high standard literary texts. So as when a kid writes, "I really like going to the mall", then you would be inclined to respond like, that's a rather bland writing style, here is some ways you can make it more sophisticated.

Actually, I have no idea how you can predict my response, since I can't. Not from the text you just put down. It would depend on the kid's age, it would depend on what his/her previous writing was like, it would depend on what the task they'd been set was, etc, etc.
If the kid could write better, than yes, I would try and improve their writing. As an educator, this is pretty much the job. If you're suggesting that I would limit my interaction with the child to this style of technical improvement, then there's not much I can say to you, apart from simply suggesting you're about as wrong as it's possible to be.

I already said, the spirit chooses.

Yes. And perhaps it's a language issue, or perhaps we're just talking past one another, but I am not sure what you mean by that. Can you try and explain in different words?

Indeed, a sign of high emotional development.

Right...ummm...so I'm confused. Are you still equating atheism and secularism with low emotional development? Or was I misunderstanding?

....come on, you know the sort of thing I am talking about. To be controlling, calculating, instead of spontaneous, thoughtful, caring.

Who's controlling and calculating? Atheists? Secularists?
Who's spontaneous, thoughtful and caring? Theists? Non-secularists?

That's it, you've convinced me. Evidence me damned, I'm going with the vibe of the thing. So rather then posting anything from the world giving index, like I normally would, I'm gonna instead offer you some words.

There is frequently more to be learned from the unexpected questions of a child than the discourses of men.
-John Locke

The truth in that is one of the reasons I got into teaching.

 

[Cephus]

Why would you say that? Many subjective beliefs have evidence. For example, I believe that the separation of church and state encourages invention and innovation. I have evidence to support that belief, but I couldn't prove it objectively. A beautiful sunrise or sunset takes my breath away - it's awesome, maybe even spiritual. But I don't have to give it supernatural explanations, I can just appreciate it. It's all subjective, it simply doesn't need supernatural explanations.

Sure you can, you just present the evidence that you have and it proves that the case that you're talking about is actually so. If you have objective evidence, it isn't a subjective belief.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why would you say that? Many subjective beliefs have evidence. For example, I believe that the separation of church and state encourages invention and innovation. I have evidence to support that belief, but I couldn't prove it objectively. A beautiful sunrise or sunset takes my breath away - it's awesome, maybe even spiritual. But I don't have to give it supernatural explanations, I can just appreciate it. It's all subjective, it simply doesn't need supernatural explanations.

You kind of do require supernatural explanation. The existence of the love in the statement, with which the words "it's awesome" are chosen, must be a matter of opinion, in order for the concept of subjectivity to function consistently. The love itself is not natural, you cannot measure it, like say it is size 640 or whatever. It is your opinion that this love in your emotions is real.

....ofcourse evidence is the point of objectivity, facts, subjectivity is different.

 

[Cephus]

You kind of do require supernatural explanation. The existence of the love in the statement, with which the words "it's awesome" are chosen, must be a matter of opinion, in order for the concept of subjectivity to function consistently. The love itself is not natural, you cannot measure it, like say it is size 640 or whatever. It is your opinion that this love in your emotions is real.

....ofcourse evidence is the point of objectivity, facts, subjectivity is different.

Love isn't supernatural at all, it's an electrochemical reaction in your brain. We can indeed measure it, we can hook you up to an MRI and measure love in the brain. All of these ridiculous woo beliefs are being shot down one by one by science.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Yes. And perhaps it's a language issue, or perhaps we're just talking past one another, but I am not sure what you mean by that. Can you try and explain in different words?

....that is just how it works, the spirit chooses, and it's a matter of opinion if the spirit is real or not.

Right...ummm...so I'm confused. Are you still equating atheism and secularism with low emotional development? Or was I misunderstanding?

Atheism generally relates to low emotional development. That is my argument.

How this works in Australia I don't know. The British do have a tradition with Ockham, Thomas, Berkely who are quite plain to philosophically validate opinion.

 

[Willamena]

Not if those are divorced from practical application.
Whether the beliefs are directly actioned by the believer, or whether they inspire the actions of others, the beliefs eventually inspire action.

Beliefs that DON'T inspire action hold no value.

Even those divorced from practical application (some might say, especially those). Take, for instance, a promise. The promise exists ideally (as idea). It may be viewed practically in that it obligates action, but it is not the action it obligates. It may obligate the cleaning of a room, for instance, but a room may be cleaned without a promise. The world (its "shape," its "picture") can have that promise in it or not and look the same practically, yet the world with that promise in it looks different in actuality, and it holds value.

So Christians say pi = 3, and secularists insist it's 3.14..... Should we have one class teaching each plus a third teaching a 3.07 compromise?

That's silly. I wasn't suggesting that either side compromise on the truth.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Love isn't supernatural at all, it's an electrochemical reaction in your brain. We can indeed measure it, we can hook you up to an MRI and measure love in the brain. All of these ridiculous woo beliefs are being shot down one by one by science.

See, that is how atheism works out in the wild..... everything is fact, all subjectivity is destroyed.

The logic of statements like "it's awesome" breaks down, if the existence of the love is asserted as a matter of fact. If the love is a fact, then as by logic, what is good, loving and beautiful becomes a matter of fact. A big conceptual mess ensues, where fact=opinion and opinion = fact.

You have to separate fact from opinion, and the line is between what chooses (opinion) and what is chosen (fact).

All of what you say about the motivation of a decision, you require at least 2 answers about what the motivation is, either of which answer is valid, and then you choose 1. But when the issue is about something that is chosen, then there is only 1 correct answer for it, and the correct answer is obtained by evidence forcing to a conclusion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

....that is just how it works, the spirit chooses, and it's a matter of opinion if the spirit is real or not.

So...you can't rephrase?

Atheism generally relates to low emotional development. That is my argument.

Thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure you've reached the status of 'argument' with this though. I suppose one advantage for seeing evidence as cold and calculating is that you can put forth your own lack of evidence as a positive.

How this works in Australia I don't know. The British do have a tradition with Ockham, Thomas, Berkely who are quite plain to philosophically validate opinion.

Sorry, mate, I'm honestly unsure what you are trying to say here. Do you mean the philosophers you have put forth are validations of your opinion? Can't quite understand.

 

[icehorse]

You kind of do require supernatural explanation. The existence of the love in the statement, with which the words "it's awesome" are chosen, must be a matter of opinion, in order for the concept of subjectivity to function consistently. The love itself is not natural, you cannot measure it, like say it is size 640 or whatever. It is your opinion that this love in your emotions is real.

....ofcourse evidence is the point of objectivity, facts, subjectivity is different.

I guess you're agreeing with me? I cannot tell for sure. I'm saying that some subjective beliefs have good (but not perfect), evidence to support them, and other subjective beliefs have little or no evidence to support them.

So, to fall back on a famous quote: "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence."

It's not at all extraordinary to say that a sunset is awesome. It's an extraordinary claim to say that a supernatural being created that sunset.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Even those divorced from practical application (some might say, especially those). Take, for instance, a promise. The promise exists ideally (as idea). It may be viewed practically in that it obligates action, but it is not the action it obligates. It may obligate the cleaning of a room, for instance, but a room may be cleaned without a promise. The world (its "shape," its "picture") can have that promise in it or not and look the same practically, yet the world with that promise in it looks different in actuality, and it holds value.

I suspect we're talking at cross-purposes here.
To my mind, the point of the promise is that it is a promise of action. A promise made had no impact until an action is derived from said promise, be it the promised action or another.

Equally, ideals are important, but the actions derived from ideals give them shape. Almost invariably these actions fall short of the ideals themselves, but this doesn't lessen the ideals. It merely illustrates the difficulty in giving them practical application and form.
However, ideals without practical application and form have no impact on the world.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Sorry, mate, I'm honestly unsure what you are trying to say here. Do you mean the philosophers you have put forth are validations of your opinion? Can't quite understand.

They validate the whole concept of making an opinion. Most other philosophies only validate the concept of producing facts (materialism etc. )

 

[Willamena]

I suspect we're talking at cross-purposes here.
To my mind, the point of the promise is that it is a promise of action. A promise made had no impact until an action is derived from said promise, be it the promised action or another.

Indeed; I indicated it may look that way to some to allow that many times we humans cannot see past our pragmatism. And that's okay, but it makes this discussion moot.

Thanks for indulging me.

 

[Cephus]

See, that is how atheism works out in the wild..... everything is fact, all subjectivity is destroyed.

The logic of statements like "it's awesome" breaks down, if the existence of the love is asserted as a matter of fact. If the love is a fact, then as by logic, what is good, loving and beautiful becomes a matter of fact. A big conceptual mess ensues, where fact=opinion and opinion = fact.

You have to separate fact from opinion, and the line is between what chooses (opinion) and what is chosen (fact).

All of what you say about the motivation of a decision, you require at least 2 answers about what the motivation is, either of which answer is valid, and then you choose 1. But when the issue is about something that is chosen, then there is only 1 correct answer for it, and the correct answer is obtained by evidence forcing to a conclusion.

No, you simply have to understand that there is a difference between subjective ideas and objective ideas, a fundamental difference between opinion and fact and treat them differently. You want there to be all kinds of wiggle room where anything that you strongly believe, you can treat like it's an objective fact, even if it isn't.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It's not at all extraordinary to say that a sunset is awesome. It's an extraordinary claim to say that a supernatural being created that sunset.

I think you are mixing up rules about probabilities, with the rules for subjective statements.

For your opinion to be valid it must be chosen, you must have had an alternative available in reaching the conclusion, and the opinion must say something about what it is that chooses (in this case, love in your heart).

Probabilities have different rules entirely.

It is entirely legitemate to say that the sunset was chosen by God. The existence of God is a matter of faith, faith is subjective. Religon focuses on faith, nobody in any mosque does mathematics of probablity.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No, you simply have to understand that there is a difference between subjective ideas and objective ideas, a fundamental difference between opinion and fact and treat them differently. You want there to be all kinds of wiggle room where anything that you strongly believe, you can treat like it's an objective fact, even if it isn't.

It is well shown that you treat every issue as an issue of fact. Destroying, subjectivity, destryoing freedom of opinion, in the process. The conclusion "the painting is beautiful" is equally logically valid as "the painting is ugly". If you say to be able to measure the love for the way the painting looks in the brain, then logically it follows, one could not have reached the conclusion the painting is ugly, one was forced by the love brainchemistry to the conclusion "the painting is beautiful".

 

[icehorse]

Hi Mohammad Nur Syamsu,

I agree we have a few different ideas floating around at the same time. My main point is that all you can really say about "atheists" is that we feel there is insufficient evidence to support believing in a supernatural being. Any other generalization that you make about atheists would require... evidence.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

They validate the whole concept of making an opinion. Most other philosophies only validate the concept of producing facts (materialism etc. )

Don't have time to check this out in the detail it would require (stupid late in this part of the world) and not sure when I will get a chance to, but I'll try and get back to it when time allows, and offer up my thoughts on the philosophers listed.

 

[Paradox22]

Science is science. It's a process followed to establish evidence based conclusions. It has no opinion on anything, including free will.

That's sort of what I thought until LegionOnomaMoi schooled me in the forum 'How do you exactly define free will?"
He uploaded some great sources that argue for a scientific explanation of free will. It's related to Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle.

 

[Paradox22]

Just as an aside, here is one of the sources Legion uploaded