People are suffering, people are being misled, and manipulated, and it is being done by people. And people are objecting to it. There are no aliens - no pathogens. — unenlightened

You're right.

Otherizing people is the wrong approach entirely.

Since atheism is the lack of a belief in a deity, I don't see how it could be a core principle to my philosophy. I don't base my view of the human condition anymore on the lack of a god than I base it on the lack of a Santa Claus or a unicorn.

I think it's only an important aspect of any positions I hold insofar as it differentiates them from theist positions. For example, my position on abortion runs counter to the prevailing Christian view thereof, and so therefore the atheistic aspect of it becomes more pronounced.

This is why I advocated for an impeachment process in the Donald Trump thread. I sincerely doubt the GOP controlled senate will remove him, which will impact their own re-election if impeachment still enjoys majority approval. — Maw

My only worry about the impeachment thing is that if Trump sees himself driven into a corner, he'll just resign (a la "I've got better things to do, great things, stable genius things") and Pence will be Potus and will then pardon Trump of all charges.

Trump knows that without reelection and/or a presidential pardon, it's "go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200."

Cogito ergo sum.

But I can only prove that with any 100% certainty to myself, not to you.

For a relatively long period of time (several hundred thousand years) we were hunter gatherers, doing much the same thing that other animals do. So, where do the higher cognitive skills come into play? — Bitter Crank

I think once you get into the hunter gatherer epoch of human development, you're already at the stage of higher cognitive skills. At least for the hunting part, because humans have pretty lousy natural hunting traits: our teeth are too flat, our nails too brittle, and we're neither very fast nor very strong (though we can run longer than most other land animals).

After we became homo sapiens, the cognitive abilities and innovation took over for evolution to provide us with food, comfort, etc.

Why new traits evolve in the first place when other species were doing just fine is pretty much coincidence. Random mutation led to a trait that was not disadvantageous enough to kill off those offspring, possibly was even beneficial.

Like a peacocks feathers not being selected for because they symbolise a strong male capable of "wasting" resources, but rather because long, colorful feathers are attractive to peacocks. — Echarmion

See my response to Praxis re:peacocks.

I refer specifically to the idea that traits with no, or even negative, survival value are selected for due to the sexual preferences - attractiveness, if you want - of the species — Echarmion

Sure, like blonde versus brunette. There's no reason (I know of, correct me if I'm wrong) for one to be more attractive than the other, yet people often have strong preferences.

Fun related fact: red hair does make sense to be considered less attractive, because it is correlated with a higher rate of genetic abnormalities.

Analogous to a peacocks feathers. I’ve seen that theory debunked but I don’t recall how exactly.

Do you tend to find artists sexy, by the way? — praxis

I'm not an expert, but seeing how most animals try to make themselves seem bigger when predators approach, I would assume that a huge plumage with spots that look like eyes would also have survival value. Probably explains their hideous voices too :lol:

I think most people think creativity is an attractive trait. But I've met enough otherwise unattractive artists to tell you that's just not enough overall. Steven Tyler is just not a "sexy" man, for example :P

What do you think about sexual selection, for example? I have always found it weird that there is such a focus on survival advantage when what really matters is not surviving, but passing on your genes.

Concerning the subject of higher cognition, it's possible that higher cognition had a survival value in general, but specific results, like mathematical abilities, are accidental byproducts. — Echarmion

When I say reproductive mechanism, I mean sexual selection. And, yes, I think it's just as important to understanding evolution as mere survival.

I think simple math has huge survival value. I've read a lot of accounts of birds and mammals having basic math skills, understanding when something is more or less, being able to count up to 5 or 10, etc. It seems to me, especially if you're living in groups, it would be beneficial to know how to share resources and how to count how many apples you're trading for how many walnuts, for example. Or how many babies are in your nest, how many members are in your group, etc. etc.

Our developed ability to do higher math, like statistics, or understand the Pythagorean theorem is probably, as you suggest, just a happy coincidence of evolution. Though I think it obviously stems from useful evolutionary traits. Curiosity, innovation, and basic math skills coming together to aid us in our understanding of the world--that sort of thing.

While I'm in agreement with your description of how the survival mechanism of evolution happens, I do think there has to be positive survival value to higher cognition.

Superfluous traits usually get weeded out because they cost calories, and surivival is in part about being calorie efficient. Since the human brain uses 20-30% of our daily calories, it suggests that there has to be good reason to maintain it at that level of complexity.

Also, evolution works through survival and reproductive mechanisms. Frogs, for example, usually don't make it past tadpole-hood, but they make up for it in laying hundreds of eggs at a time.

I've read some theories that art is a reproductive value: showing that you have the extra calories and resources to invest in art makes you attractive to a mate since it suggests a greater ability to provide for offspring.

That's what he thought the main secular goals of a Christian ought to be, and he saw it clearly that the communist party had the very same ideals in view. — god must be atheist

I've always said Jesus would've been a long-haired, tree-hugging, bleeding-heart, commie-swine hippie (which is why I'm mostly sympathetic to his parts in the Bible).



I think it's obvious to lots of us lefties that the official Left has abandoned class issues in favor of identity issues. But I also think there's a movement obvious through Bernie and Warren looking to refocus on just those causes.

The Right pretends to be for the working class by appealing to their fears of the Other and some mythology about "trickle-down" effects and self-made wealth. These are just distractions to keep the lower classes from demanding a just and equal system.

:cheer: :100:

You ignore my answers and then you ignore my criticism of you ignoring my answers. Just in order to ask the same question over and over. Trolltrolltroll.

You're trolling.

Not until you respond to answers I've already, repeatedly given you :kiss:

Do you always ignore the things your interlocutors actually say?

Why do you ask questions when you're clearly not interested in the answers?

I'm expecting you, as an Atheist who's values logic, would be able explain them. — 3017amen

I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make him understand logical arguments.

So, for example, I have now 3 or 4 times explained 3 and you keep just ignoring what I say. On that basis, and your unapologetic rudeness (which leads me to believe you either can't handle the discussion or you're just a troll) there's no point in responding any further.

Please tell everyone. tick tock tick tock — 3017amen

So that's just rude.

God is love. — unenlightened

If you want to define god as love so that you can continue using that random word for whaatever reason, go ahead. But that means god is just an emotion and not a conscious entity, creator of the universe, or an independent existence in any way.

We are waiting for both of you to prove something, but you got nothing. Your logic could not answer those questions. Mmmmmmm, sounds like Atheism isn't a logical as you thought, no? — 3017amen

Actually, I did, and you're just refusing to engage it. That not only shows you've lost the argument, but that you're kind of a bad (and impolite) interlocutor.

Ok, then answer this: did my consciousness daydream or my subconsciousness daydream, while driving the car? — 3017amen

I answered that: probably a bit of both. They work together.

1. This statement is a lie. — 3017amen

You keep on doing the same thing, so I'll jus shorthand it for ya: linguistic quirk.

Love doesn't entail god.

No, it doesn't. The brain multi-tasks. It can do many things at once. Like I can rub my belly and pat my head at the same time. Or play the melody and bass line on the piano at the same time.

That's not a statement, it's a question.

Are you sure? When a person daydreams while driving, causing a crash, how does that happen?

Was their subconscious daydreaming, or was it their conscious? — 3017amen

Probably a bit of both.

That's not a paradox. It just means one of them is mistaken or lying.

Edit: misread it.

I already answered that: it's just a linguistic quirk that you can say all sorts of crazy things that have no bearing on reality.

Fine, die for nothing, then. — unenlightened

Seems like a false dichotomy to me. Either god or nothing is worth dying for?

The people you love are worth living and dying for to most people, I would think.

Consciousness and subconsciousness are as non-contradictory as a duck swimming on a lake. The legs are moving, but you can't see them, all you see is the body. It's still a unified whole.

Jinx! :wink:

Or there could be a metaphysical logic — 3017amen

It would still have to be logical.

P and-p describes how consciousness and subconsciousness works together no? — 3017amen

No.

I think whether you're talking about logic or metalogic, you're still forced to employ logic.

I'm not opposed to finding flaws in parts of the system. But some basics are irrefutable. A is A, and A is not not-A, etc.

Of course, those flaws would only be found with logic, the flaw would be shown to be not-logic, and the solution or fix would again be logic.

They don't exist, because they would be paradoxical.

1. Is true. And before you get all "Critique of Pure Reason" on me, the limits of our perception/understanding as to how far back time and events go is a reason for further scientific inquiry, not for tossing logic out the window. Occam's Razor and all.

Just a quirk of the abstract and constructed nature of language. You can say a lot of paradoxical things, and none of them actually exist, because paradoxes cannot exist. Like pink, invisible unicorns.

Arguing against logic using logic will inevitably lead to the equivalent of saying "this sentence is a lie."

You're trying to logic your way out of logic. It's not going to work.

It is evident that since neither 'God' nor 'no God' can be shown for thee sure satisfaction of all, the positions of both atheism and theism are indefensible — PoeticUniverse

Truth ain't a democracy.

Same.
The forum won't be quite the same without him.

That's an entirely different process from simply being atheist.

The atheist recognizes the absence of a god and an afterlife.

After that the atheist has a lot of choices about how to deal with mortality. Humanism, as you point out, is one of them. Stoicism another. Existential crisis would be another.

Personally, I don't think I'm stoical about death. I don't see it as a reason to be afraid or stoical. Being dead is being nothing, and so there's nothing to fear.

Dying, on the other hand, is kinda scary. I don't like pain and I don't like lots of the things that happen during the dying process. I'm hoping for a quick death when the time comes. Somehow I think most theists (except maybe those who think they need to practice some voodoo before death to get wherever they want to go?) would agree with me there.