Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Miserable Creatures

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Imagine if atheistic materialism was actually true and humans are nothing more than biological automatons – complexly programmed and reactive robots that behave and think in whatever manner happenstance chemical interactions dictates at any given time.  Let’s think about what would actually mean.

There would be no way for a biological automaton to determine whether or not any statement was in fact true or not since all conclusions are driven by chemistry and not metaphysical “truth” values; indeed, a biological automaton reaches conclusion X for exactly the same reason any other reaches conclusion Y; chemistry.  If chemistry dictates that 1+1=banana, that is what a “person” will conclude. If chemistry dictates they defend that view to the death and see themselves as a martyr for the computational banana cause, that is exactly what they will do.

All such a biological automaton has is whatever chemistry generates as what they see, hear, taste, smell, touch, feel, think, and do. If they eat some stale pizza and, through a chaotic cascade of happenstance physical cause and effect, accept Mohammed with great faith and zeal, then no determined atheist can resist – that is what will occur.  And they will think it was a logical conclusion, if chemistry says so.  They can only be whatever chemistry dictates.

Imagine the frustration of the atheist having to admit that they came to their views exactly the same way any religious fanatic came to theirs. Imagine the bleak realization that there is no way to prove it, or even provide any evidence, because such feats would require that one’s thoughtful capacity to consider such things be removed from, and in control of, the same chemical processes that generate all positions that disagree with theirs.

Imagine the misery of attempting to argue that some things are right, and others are wrong, when the same relentless, impersonal, uncaring chemistry produces both. One might as well call the shape of a fig leaf right and true, and call the shape of a maple leaf wrong and false.  How pitiful it is when atheists act as if their condition is somehow superior to some non-atheist condition, when all conditions are simply a products of happenstance chemistry and physics. It’s not like “they” had a hand in their own thoughts or ideas or conclusions; they have whatever thoughts blind mechanistic forces shoved in their brain.  “They” are nothing but a pitiful puppet doomed to think and act and feel whatever chemistry dictates while stupidly acting and arguing as if something else was the case.

Atheists insist that they live a life as capable of being good as any theist.  They are often proud of how “good” they are in comparison to theists they mock and ridicule. What are they proud of?  What are the mocking and ridiculing?  The inevitable effects of chemical interactions?  Any idea or thought or act that anyone has or does is nothing more than just another effect ultimately generated by mindless chemical interactions and effects.  You might as well be proud that grass is green or ridicule the color of the sky; the same mindless forces generated those things as your own thoughts, beliefs and actions.

How pitiful is it to rant and rave and argue against physics and chemistry?  If atheistic materialism is true, then atheists here are like Don Quixote, acting like windmills are great beasts, or like biological automatons are sentient creatures capable of doing something other than whatever chemistry dictates.  They might as well argue with a tree to get it to change the shape and color of its leaves, or with a stream to get it to change direction. They are tilting at windmills trying to convince the windmill to do something other than what windmills do.  They are madmen arguing with swirling dirt, animated by natural law and chance.

What a ruinous, ludicrous, miserable position to insist for yourself – arguing and debating against the onward, relentless march of happenstance interactions of matter ruled by chemistry and physics as if such arguments mattered, as if you and everyone else is something other than programmed biological automatons doing whatever chemistry dictates.  But then, pitifully, they really can’t do anything else except foolishly act out this absurd facade because they, too, are just the puppets of chemistry.

Comments
William J Murray: "In other materialist news, “Rockslide Apologizes For Wiping Town Out”. But, when accused of having also destroyed another nearby town, it indignantly commented: "I am only responsible for my own wipeouts!" :)gpuccio
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
Pindi: "Libertarian free will is incoherent." No. "And I am waiting in vain for someone to tell me how it actually works." No need to wait any longer. The subject of conscious representations, at each moment, can react in at least two different ways to all the deterministic inputs, external and internal, he receives and represents. The two (or more) reactions are not equivalent, but have different meaning and value in a "cognitive and moral field" of which the subject of conscious representations is intuitively aware. Therefore, at each moment, the subject of conscious representations can react differently to deterministic inputs, and that difference has cognitive and moral value to him. Therefore, his choices have cognitive and moral value, and change his personal destiny. That's how libertarian free will works. It is a choice between alternatives, whose different value is intuitively perceived. Do you remember the Donald Duck cartoon with an angel and a devil on his shoulders? That's exactly what libertarian free will is, and how it works. https://ronnyeo.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/untitled.jpggpuccio
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
Pindi @72,
Well HeKS if that’s not argumentum ad populum I don’t know what is.
Then I guess you don't know what is. First, an argument ad populum is basically just an appeal to popular opinion, without regard for the qualifications of those holding the opinion. If you had been paying any attention to what I've been saying all this time then you would have noticed that part of my point is that popular atheist opinion is almost completely uninformed about the logical implications of atheism/materialism, even though these implications are recognized by atheist academics. So, if you wanted to falsely accuse me of some fallacy, it would have been more appropriate to claim it was the more narrow appeal to authority, not an argumentum ad populum. Of course, this is not a case of an appeal to authority either. My point in directing you to the comments of these atheist academics is primarily to show you that it is not only theists who recognize the logic underlying the comments and arguments we've been making here. Even the academics on your side of the worldview debate widely recognize these logically necessary implications. As I specifically said in my comment to you:
The logic holds and the conclusions are really rather obvious. So for you to say that you yourself don’t hold these opinions, as though they are no more binding on you than someone else’s preferred flavor of ice cream, simply won’t do. It’s like agreeing that all men are mortal and that Socrates is a man, but then claiming that you don’t personally hold the opinion that Socrates is mortal. You can make the claim if you like, but in the absence of a solid argument that can overturn the sound reasoning of theists and atheists alike, your declarations that you don’t personally hold the opinions in question amounts to nothing more than an admission that your views about the world and your own mind directly contradict the atheistic worldview you claim to hold.
The logic holds, Pindi, and even academic atheists recognize it. It is the logic that is the ultimate point. For you to dismiss logically necessary conclusions recognized by people on both sides of the debate as being mere opinions that can be rationally ignored without undermining your entire worldview is just silly (unless your worldview is true, in which case your fully determined chemical reactions simply aren't allowing you to do otherwise). Having accepted the premises that all men are mortal and that Socrates is a man, is Socrates a mortal only in the same way that chocolate is the best ice cream flavor?
I think sometimes you get carried away by your own fervour.
More likely you just need to read more carefully. WJM had no problem grasping the purpose of my comments, and contrary to rvb8's claims in #62, WJM's posts, including the current OP, are perfectly readable and quite easy to understand when one bothers to pay attention.HeKS
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
Vy @ 70 "Like how you’re blind to the fact that Atheists happen to a member of the oh so terrible group “religious”? Wonder which chemical is responsible for that." It works like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXobb
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
I scrolled up the thread and found this nugget: "Aren’t things either caused/determined by things, or random? So if there is nothing causing you to make a decision about something, is it then random?" This conflation of causality with determinism is a very egregious error, for some entity X can cause some state of affairs Y in a non-deterministic manner. Some cause can be deterministic only if it is the case that this cause necessarily produces its effect.Autodidaktos
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
Origenes @82: It seems your text has triggered the bag-o-chems formerly known as Pindi. Try serving up your next batch with a little salt. Salt is widely known to mollify materialist moodiness.William J Murray
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
KF, One wonders why materialists and atheists would visit this site at all. Wouldn't the wiser choice be to avoid areas that are more likely to cause unwanted chemical reactions in the brain that would force unwanted beliefs? I mean, they prance around in this infection zone as if they think they are somehow immune to chemistry. Whassup with that?William J Murray
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
Pindi @, Pindi has stated:
Me and my chemicals are the same thing.
Next, in post 46, Vy provided some quotes in line with Pindi's claim, such as: “… biological systems are nothing more than a bag of chemicals that obey chemical and physical laws.” and “The reality is, not only do we have no more free will than a fly or a bacterium, in actuality we have no more free will than a bowl of sugar.” This seems to annoy Pindi:
Pindi: I don’t get the point of quoting a bunch of other people and then somehow relating that to me? I am only responsible for my own thoughts and opinions. You seem to believe that all atheists share the same opinions on everything.
Do materialists differ in opinion wrt the notion that chemicals obey chemical and physical laws? Do they quarrel amongst themselves about the question “do chemicals have free will or not?” If so, I would really like to know. Pindi, more than once you have stated to be of "another opinion" on (seemingly) uncontroversial matters, but you never articulate your thoughts. Why is it that? Why don’t you go on and explain in what way “your opinion” on these matters differs from other materialists?Origenes
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
Vy @ 79: Oh, snap. Nice catch. It's nice to see a bag of chemistry taking personal responsibility. In other materialist news, "Rockslide Apologizes For Wiping Town Out".William J Murray
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
I need more popcorn! This is rich. :DVy
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
Libertarian free will is incoherent
And yet, a few comments earlier:
I am only responsible for my own thoughts and opinions.
Bravo!Vy
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT
WJM, this seems to be Fuerbach's you are what you eat on steroids. KF PS: I see you put pizza on the suspect list. Is it the anchovies? (FISH --> IXTHUS . . . Jesus Christ, Son of God & Saviour) H'mm, there was that miracle of 5 Johnny Bakes and 2 sprats, then that fish at the table Easter Sunday evening and the draft of 153 fish. Peter was a fisherman. That fish with the tax-paying coin in the mouth . . . and more. Somebody should get Templeton to fund research on the secret ingredient in fish.kairosfocus
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
Stories from the materialist world where mindless chemistry and physics causes thoughts and beliefs: Pindi and rvb8, both atheists and materialists, order a pizza and watch the ball game. Halfway through, Pindi starts sobbing and rvb8 gasps. "What's wrong?" rvb8 asks. "Oh no! That pizza made me believe in God! I can't help myself ... I've been so wrong and I'm such a sinner, I'm going to pray." Pindi closes his eyes and puts his hands together in prayer. rvb8 puts his hand on Pindi's shoulder, smiles and excitedly says, "That's okay, Pindi. After eating that pizza I just realized, I'm God! I forgive you!"William J Murray
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
I think I am going to buy popcorn futures.kairosfocus
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
Why should anyone care what Pindi Or rvb8 says when, according to their worldview, they could have a random chemical reaction at any moment and, as a caused result, make exactly the opposite claims and arguments with exactly the same conviction? Be careful what you eat, guys. That next meal might make you a devout Christian!William J Murray
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT
Pindi said:
Well HeKS if that’s not argumentum ad populum I don’t know what is.
You don't know what "argumentum ad populum" is, then. HeKS isn't making an argument that because some highly respected atheist philosophers agree with the logic being argued here, therefore his argument is valid or true. HeKS responded to your request in another thread for him to provide the very thing you now (erroneously) claim is an argument ad populum. Presenting the logical case here and referring to atheist philosophers who agree when asked is not attempting to make the case via popular or authoritative opinion. It would be silly to expect me to accept other people’s opinions as fact but in this case the opinions are true so I must accept them! Nobody is expecting you to accept opinons; what we expect you to do is either accept the logic or rebut it. Perhaps you are having difficulty recognizing the logical challenge to your position? 1. IF mind, consciousness, beliefs, feelings, thoughts, etc. are all the caused effects of matter interacting by physico-chemical laws and chance, how can one ascertain the difference between what is an actual fact, and what such forces just happen to implant in our brain states as a "fact", but which actually is not? 2. The same question holds for memories, evidence, logic, etc; how can one tell the difference between actual evidence, memory and logic, and false versions of those things caused by chemical interactions? 3. How can you tell if what you understand about the world is not actually a complete misunderstanding generated by chemical processes? Please provide some sort of logical argument that supports your idea that biological automatons can somehow sort out the difference between true beliefs about the world and false ones and somehow change their chemistry from false beliefs to true beliefs.
Libertarian free will is incoherent.
How so?
And I am waiting in vain for someone to tell me how it actually works.
What do you mean by this question? It "works" by being an acausal cause that somehow (perhaps quantum observer entanglements and collapse?) affects material processes.
The only person who has attempted to do so is WJM and he says it is inexplicable! My point exactly.
What point? Because something is inexplicable doesn't mean the concept and its necessary place in a logical chain is incoherent. How is an acausal cause "incoherent"? It is something that is itself not caused, but has the internal capacity to cause other things to occur. I don't understand how anyone can think this is an "incoherent" idea since we utilize this concept throughout our daily life - that we are not caused to do what we do, or think what we think, but rather think and operate and have expectations as if we have a top-down, uncaused (but informed and contextualized) capacity to override mere physical forces and cause our body and thoughts to do as we command (within certain limitations). This is where our entire notion of personal responsibility and free will comes from - our ubiquitous agreement that the buck stop here, that we are in command of what we think, say and do. It is coherent - even if the capacity is inexplicable - because it is what we actually experience virtually every waking second of our lives. We have to suspend the obviousness of that experience and imagine that, unknown to us, countless virtually invisible, mindless chemical interactions are somehow producing every thought and act and word we find ourselves engaging in in order to agree to the materialist viewpoint. Saying that one finds the idea of libertarian free will "incoherent" is just a bizarre statement. It is only by the assumed existence of libertarian free will and a capacity to freely examine the merits of ideas through an uncaused mind's eye of evaluation-to-conclusion that there can be any meaningful difference between finding a concept coherent or incoherent in the first place. Without free will, one is simply caused by whatever chemical process happen to be in effect in their body to say an idea is coherent or incoherent while such mindless forces concurrently cause them to feel like they have said something valid. Either way one feels, whatever they say, it's just matter causing them to say it and believe it without any regard for the truth. Chemical processes don't care about the truth. Without libertarian free will, the idea of a logically coherent concept has no meaning - they are just words and feelings that chemistry can make one apply one way one day, and then in a contrary way the next day. Indeed, depending on what Pindi eats tonight, he could come in tomorrow with his/her chemistry altered, proclaiming their conversion to Christianity or Islam. Indeed, by his/her own worldview, I can dismiss all of Pindi's views as nothing more than the result of some chemical reaction he/she had years ago - and that dismissal would be factually based on Pindi's own worldview on how anyone comes to their beliefs and views.William J Murray
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT
"Libertarian free will is incoherent." Prove that it's incoherent. "And I am waiting in vain for someone to tell me how it actually works." This seems to assume that we need to know HOW something works to know THAT it exists -- which is certainly not the case, for we don't need to know how gravity works in order to know that it exists.Autodidaktos
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
Well HeKS if that's not argumentum ad populum I don't know what is. It would be silly to expect me to accept other people's opinions as fact but in this case the opinions are true so I must accept them! I think sometimes you get carried away by your own fervour. Libertarian free will is incoherent. And I am waiting in vain for someone to tell me how it actually works. The only person who has attempted to do so is WJM and he says it is inexplicable! My point exactly.Pindi
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT
But, to be fair, rvb8 doesn’t seem to have the capacity to be logically critical of his own views; all he can do, apparently, is continue to reassert their validity as if he has some special capacity beyond thinking whatever chemicals happen to generate.
But of course, WJM! The inconsistency between his beliefs and actions obviously proves he's a member of an elite group of enlightened ones who've come to save us from the clutches of "contradictory, narcissistic, sexist, misogynistic, anti-LGBTQIAMOPSV, anti-evodelusionary goat-herder myths", religion (except Atheism of course), faith, and usher in the "new" era of scientism. They are the YODA and they're gonna Storm the Heavens, they've been trying to do so for decades! :D Now, may we all bow to the awesomeness that is rbv8? It's not everyday you get graced by such a personality.Vy
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT
Just as the chemically induced emotions of the religious, causes them to be blind to facts.
Like how you're blind to the fact that Atheists happen to a member of the oh so terrible group "religious"? Wonder which chemical is responsible for that. Hmm, I guess over the last few "evolutions" of Atheism, you've "evolved" to be selectively blind. Carry on, I'll get the popcorn. :)Vy
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
rvb8 said:
When WJM says that rvb8 cntradicts himself when he says ‘religion did a bad job’, and does not realise it is the physics and chemicals which did a, ‘bad job’, why on earth does he believe this would upset me? I agree!
I cannot imagine the world rvb8 lives in where it is coherent to consider some effect generated ultimately by mindless physics and chemistry a "bad job". It's like saying that a mountain did a "bad job" of resisting erosion or some water did a "bad job" of soaking into a fabric. They are, apparently, totally oblivious to the absurdity of what they write here.William J Murray
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT
Andre @66: Apparently the real problem is getting the materialist to understand what the problem is in asserting that their particular chemical interactions correspond to some actual truth, while asserting the chemical interactions of others do not. Being nothing but chemical interactions, there's no way for them to know that. There's no way for them to "know" anything in any meaningful sense of the word, because the only thing any such assertion can mean is "chemical processes have cause this sensation". All "knowing" or "fact" is, under materialism, is "chemical interactions have caused the sensation that something is known or is a fact, whether that thing is true or false." All "evidence" is, under materialism, is "chemical interactions have caused the sensation that something is evidence, whether or not it is actually evidence." All "memory" is, under materialism, is "chemical interactions have caused the sensation that something is a memory, whether or not that thing actually occurred." Etc. They seem to be immune to understanding this fundamental, fatal flaw in their worldview and how it makes everything they say in a debate absurd.William J Murray
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT
The biological automaton called rvb8 writes @62:
I know that it is the memories, feelings, and other emotions stored electrically, in our chemically driven brains that causes us to act.
Of course, being a chemically driven automaton, rvb8 experiences "knowing" as an internal sensation produced entirely by chemicals; that sensation of "knowing" can accompany any information at all, whether factual or false. Other biological automatons "know" things that in direct contradiction to what rvb8 "knows"; however, there is nothing outside of that chemically-produced sensation of "knowing" that rvb8 can refer to to elevate his "knowledge" above the "knowledge" of other automatons that contradict his.
Just as the chemically induced emotions of the religious, causes them to be blind to facts. Yes! I agree! Your turn for an absolutely grammatically dense, utterly unreadable response.
All biological automatons are equally blind to facts. Automatons will consider something a fact, no matter how false or absurd, if their chemistry dictates that they will. They will consider a piece of information a memory, or an emotion, or true or false for no reason other than that is what their chemistry dictates. If chemistry generates as "memory" something that never happened, and dicatates rvb8 consider that memory a "fact", that is what rvb8 will do. There's no way for rvb8 to know what is a fact, what is provable, what is true, what is emotion, what is memory, what is fantasy in any sense other than chemicals make him experience various things as such - same as anyone else. Yet, rvb8 ignorantly talks as if he somehow knows his knowledge is true knowledge, as if he has some way to peer beyond his chemical limitations to understand what "chemical truths" are really true, based on real memories (not just chemicals producing false memories) and real evidence (not just chemical-induced sensations of evidence). He is confidant his chemicals have produced a true reflection of a reality and that his confidence is more than just a chemically-produced sensation, the same kind of sensations that millions who disagree with his views experience. But note, rvb8 doesn't even address the logic of his own worldview, doesn't explain how, in principle, it can grant him any capacity to make valid judgements instead of chemically-produced false sensations of valid judgements (like it must be doing in everyone arguing against his position). Without actually addressing the logical objections, he blithely reasserts that he just knows and is confident in that knowledge. He just knows that his particular chemically-produced knowledge and memories and facts and evidence are actual facts even outside of the domain of his personal, chemically-produced sensations of fact, memory, etc. However, under his worldview there's no way for him to acquire such knowledge, much less be confident of it. Even the most superficial of critical introspection would allow one to see the logical and common-sense flaw in this position, but rvb8 blindly soldiers on, using terms as if he has some extra-chemical perception of truth by which to judge his own chemically-produced sensations as true, and the chemically-produced sensations of others as false. rvb8, logically speaking, how is it that you, as a biological automaton that thinks and believes whatever happenstance physico-dynamic forces dictate, can know your chemically-induced sensations of fact, memory, evidence, etc., reflect actual facts, actual historical events, actual evidence? How - logically speaking - is your confidence any difference than the confidence experienced by those who disagree with you? But, to be fair, rvb8 doesn't seem to have the capacity to be logically critical of his own views; all he can do, apparently, is continue to reassert their validity as if he has some special capacity beyond thinking whatever chemicals happen to generate. He doesn't seem capable of grasping - even a little bit - the logical consequences of the position his worldview claims put him in because here he is, still asserting things his worldview logically disallows him from having any meaningful knowledge or understanding of. I don't doubt that rvb8 is quite happy and secure with his state of affairs; ignorance is indeed bliss. If he were to actually understand how foolish, self-contradictory, and logically absurd his statements here are with respect to his insisted-upon worldview, I imagine his embarrassment would be severe. But, apparently, he has no idea. He apparently has trouble reading long, considered posts that contain logical, critical examinations of worldview systems and their ramifications.William J Murray
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
02:00 AM
2
02
00
AM
PDT
I will say it again.... The fundamental problem for materialism is this, chemical reactions thinking about chemical reactions..... It's a materialist show stopper.....Andre
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT
Pindi & RVB8 [et al], The collapse and irretrievable bankruptcy of evolutionary materialistic scientism as a main type of atheism, is now painfully evident to one and all who will but look. But of course, as a part of that, there is inherent amorality with organically embedded moral subjectivism, leading to rejection and dulling of the prompting voice of conscience towards the truth, reason and the right. That leaves but one thing on the table: might and manipulation make 'right,' 'truth,' 'meaning,' 'reason,' 'rights' and more. Cynically manipulative nihilism, in short. And that is already evident above. Nay, it was long since evident to say Plato contemplating the collapse of Athenian democracy c 360 BC. Yes, Evolutionary Materialistic atheism is ancient, and was known to be utterly ruinous by 360 BC:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
Mockery or refusal to attend to inconvenient facts and logic or to soberingly sound lessons of history and warnings on the march of folly our civilisation is now undertaking do not blunt the force of these words. They simply reveal refusal to learn sobering lessons of history hard bought with blood and tears. Such as do that simply doom themselves (and our civilisation were we foolish enough to give power to such) to pay the same horrific coin for lessons that were already old when Paul of Tarsus warned of the follies of locking God out of our knowledge base, in Rom 1. So, the conclusion of the matter (with Luke's concrete historical microcosm of the ship of state in mind from Ac 27) is that we must now take prudent action to avert a march of ruinous folly. Which includes recognising that those who insist on clinging to the bankrupt lab coat clad evolutionary materialism of our day would lead us to ruin. Nay, have been leading us to ruin. KFkairosfocus
September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT
rvb8,
When WJM says that rvb8 cntradicts himself when he says ‘religion did a bad job’, and does not realise it is the physics and chemicals which did a, ‘bad job’, why on earth does he believe this would upset me? I agree! I know that it is the memories, feelings, and other emotions stored electrically, in our chemically driven brains that causes us to act.
The problem is that you seem to think this is just about storage ... that memories, for example, are essentially what they seem to be, and that they are stored chemically in the brain. That is fabulously wrong. On atheism/materialism, your "memories" have no true content. They aren't about anything. Do you think you remember some significant event in your life, like a graduation, a wedding, or the birth of a child? You don't. Your "memories" aren't about events any more than chairs are about tables. On your worldview, nothing about the world is as it seems, nor is there a you to which it can seem that way. Do you think you have reasons to believe that your thoughts are merely the products of your brain? So sorry. You can't. You can't have either beliefs or thoughts about beliefs, nor is it even coherent to think you might be able to rationally deliberate upon true external facts and come to a reasoned conclusion that is in any way causally related to the truth value of those illusory external data. These are the necessary implications of your worldview, as widely acknowledged even by other atheists. If you want to deny them, good for you ... that's the first sign of rationality. Unfortunately, it means you are merely paying lip-service to your atheism and materialism while living a mental life that finds its logical and metaphysical foundations in theism.HeKS
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT
rvb8, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." -Proverbs 9:10 I'm sure you've read it before. Heed it, or remain a fool. Your choice.bb
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT
When WJM says that rvb8 cntradicts himself when he says 'religion did a bad job', and does not realise it is the physics and chemicals which did a, 'bad job', why on earth does he believe this would upset me? I agree! I know that it is the memories, feelings, and other emotions stored electrically, in our chemically driven brains that causes us to act. Just as the chemically induced emotions of the religious, causes them to be blind to facts. Yes! I agree! Your turn for an absolutely grammatically dense, utterly unreadable response. Again! Why is it that I must read and re-read your posts before I get your meaning? (No doubt the insults will now flow.) The ironic mind is joyous, the literal mind dull; the spiritual are so literal. Can't you write a simple sentence explaining your position? I've given up on the indecipherable Kairos.rvb8
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT
HeKS writes #57 "if you like, but in the absence of a solid argument that can overturn the sound reasoning of theists and atheists alike, your declarations that you don’t personally hold the opinions in question amounts to nothing more than an admission that your views about the world and your own mind directly contradict the atheistic worldview you claim to hold. If you are to be logically consistent, that worldview demands that you disavow the existence of any self, the existence of any thoughts that are about things, or any access to truth on the basis of free and rational deliberation." This is exactly the crux of the matter, and it is surprising that the materialist commenters are unable to see, or rather admit, that. It is why rvb8's blithe statement that 'My ‘miserable creature’ self, is very pleased with the present. ' is the very antithesis of an argument and is a purely subjective, meaningless comment. If someone were to counter with, "I'm a Christian who believes in Noah's Ark, the virgin birth, etc. and I'm very happy living as such, thank you!", he has no logical basis with which to counter that. Given his line of reasoning, he can say nothing but, 'well done, then'. But he does nothing of the kind, rather ridiculing such a viewpoint as a 'dark, incurious, miniscule world', with absolutely NO basis for his condemnation. If the Christian is just as 'pleased with the present' as he is, AND his basis for his happiness is predicated on a choice to ignore the implications of his worldview, there are no grounds for triumphalism, no basis for finding his worldview superior, nothing, zilch, nada. Just subjectivity, nothing else.soundburger
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
Dionisio @59, you're welcome. Sometimes it's just fun to see them tie themselves in knots to prove they are "ANTI-GOAT-HERDER MYTHS and UBER-RATIONAL PRO-SCIENCE!!!" champions. It's adorably pitiful :)Vy
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply