natural vs artificial
natural vs supernatural

heres a link to the lounge thread mentioned earlier thats polling ppl on religion... add your input
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=390004&page=9

[Edited on April 1, 2006 at 4:52 PM. Reason : .]

4/1/2006 4:50:32 PM

Quote :

"Humans have the ability to learn from observation and from their mistakes. Trial and error of course."

Oh, OK, so he would have raped, murdered, stolen, beat off in public, and molested a little kid once, then learned from the results that he was not to do so again. That speaks well of human nature.

The point is that he has no natural inclination away from such abominable acts. He has the intervention of something else. Thus his nature still blows.

Quote :

"Go ahead and type in the words "Religion" and "War" in your google search field and see what you find."

God, you're a blithering twat. The point isn't that we need religion. It's that we need something -- perhaps a god, perhaps a government -- to make us better than our natures. Or are you an anarchist as well as an atheist?

Quote :

"What the hell makes you think that we aren't living naturally?"

Observing humans who live in ancient societies or states of anarchy, and observing our closest animal relatives (incidentally, not ants). It would appear that when we don't have some sort of construct imposed upon us from the cradle to the grave, we act pretty lame.

Quote :

"The whole of society is actively engaged in attempting to oppress "evil", by whatever violent means they can muster."

Ha!

You mean you think that all of the various warlords and groups there are trying to accomplish something for a greater good than their own personal one? They're not trying to destroy evil, they're not trying to create moral good, they're trying to create their own wealth and power. I never said that people wouldn't get together to that end.

4/1/2006 5:01:52 PM

Quote :

"It would appear that when we don't have some sort of construct imposed upon us from the cradle to the grave, we act pretty lame."

Are you suggesting people do not act pretty lame within a construct?

Some people act lame when they have something to gain.

Some don't.

4/1/2006 5:10:47 PM

Nice try.

The fact that some people still do act pretty lame within the construct only strengthens my point about how shitty human nature is.

You're second statement is almost impossible to test in any way. Seeing who did and didn't act lame for their own benefit would have to be done in something strongly resembling anarchy, and, further, it would have to be observed in an environment in which all the actors had equal strengths. Sure, there's people in Somalia who aren't doing all the evil things in the world for their own good -- but how many of those seemingly good-hearted people simply can't because of physical or mental weakness, and how many of the rest are actually under the control of some society?

My proposition is rather easier to support, since the simple fact that people who can act like assholes outside of some greater control so frequently do.

Not that any of that matters, anyway. I don't recall saying that all humans, given the opportunity, will act like assholes. There are aberrations and outliers. That proves nothing.

4/1/2006 5:19:54 PM

Quote :

"You mean you think that all of the various warlords and groups there are trying to accomplish something for a greater good than their own personal one? They're not trying to destroy evil, they're not trying to create moral good, they're trying to create their own wealth and power. I never said that people wouldn't get together to that end."

You are not exactly right. They are fighting and dying for "Their team", or their boss. They have reverted to a more natural state, that of tribes. And yes, they are fighting for their perception of "good", regardless of how truely evil that "good" may be.

My Guy is good, your Guy is trying to be my Guy, your Guy needs to die.

4/1/2006 5:24:04 PM

Quote :

"They are fighting and dying for "Their team", or their boss."

Maybe some of the common rank-and-file, easily manipulated are.

The bosses themselves, and the large part of their crew who are also working for handouts, are purely self-interested.

On the whole, "good" is only a word they use to attract some followers, who are quite clearly clinging to some kind of order rather than to any moral precept.

4/1/2006 5:28:08 PM

Quote :

"The fact that some people still do act pretty lame within the construct only strengthens my point about how shitty human nature is."

No, it doesn't. Human nature is only shitty when you start to evaluate it versus some supernatural standard.

4/1/2006 5:34:21 PM

I'm not taking a supernatural standard at the moment.

Or don't you, atheist, think that rape, murder, theft, public masturbation, and child molestation are wrong?

4/1/2006 5:42:34 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "Humans have the ability to learn from observation and from their mistakes. Trial and error of course." Oh, OK, so he would have raped, murdered, stolen, beat off in public, and molested a little kid once, then learned from the results that he was not to do so again. That speaks well of human nature. The point is that he has no natural inclination away from such abominable acts. He has the intervention of something else. Thus his nature still blows. Quote : "Go ahead and type in the words "Religion" and "War" in your google search field and see what you find." God, you're a blithering twat. The point isn't that we need religion. It's that we need something -- perhaps a god, perhaps a government -- to make us better than our natures. Or are you an anarchist as well as an atheist?"

Resilient mother fucker aren't you,

"Oh, OK, so he would have raped, murdered, stolen, beat off in public, and molested a little kid once, then learned from the results that he was not to do so again." - I'm amazed that this is what you got from my post. Especially when I first wrote down in that post that all humans are born with some inherent instict. Sure Caveman Joe probably committed a few tasteless acts in his maturing, shit I mutilated a plethera of insects and small animals when I was a young sprite. None of that means that I raped or murdered anyone out of my own ignorance. Your wild assumptions are too generalized in that you think a human brain is a blank canvest unless religion sets it straight. Were you rejected by your mom as baby or something?

"The point isn't that we need religion. It's that we need something -- perhaps a god, perhaps a government -- to make us better than our natures. Or are you an anarchist as well as an atheist?"

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=390004&page=9


You sure got my number Grumpy.

"shut the fuck up and recognize that human nature is shitty and that we do need something outside of nature to keep us from sucking like we normally would. Religion serves that purpose as well as secular government."

Wait now we do need religion


[Edited on April 1, 2006 at 5:47 PM. Reason : look out, I'm both an anarchist and an atheist now]

4/1/2006 5:44:36 PM

Grumpy, I'm no atheist.

Don't throw me in the same kiddy-corner as you and joe_schmoe. I don't claim to have the answer to a question that by its very nature does not have an answer.

Of course I think rape, murder, theft, and child molestation shouldn't happen. I don't want those things to happen to me. I have no particular desire to do them to others. I feel that when somebody does one of these things, they are a threat and should be eliminated as a threat.

4/1/2006 5:46:41 PM

Quote :

"I don't claim to have the answer to a question that by its very nature does not have an answer."

Bull-fucking-shit. You contradict yourself in that very statement, to say nothing of the mass of your other writings. You have made clear your position that no god is real, that they are all imaginary. That is atheism; don't try to sound all open-minded and wise by slapping another title on it.

Quote :

"Especially when I first wrote down in that post that all humans are born with some inherent instict."

I ignored this for two reasons. One, you had nothing to back it up. Two, in the very next fucking sentence you said that we picked up by learning, by trial and error -- in other words, not by instinct.

Quote :

"Your wild assumptions are too generalized in that you think a human brain is a blank canvest unless religion sets it straight."

LISTEN

ARE YOU ASSHOLES DEAF, OR JUST RETARDED?

I STOPPED DEALING EXCLUSIVELY WITH RELIGION A WHILE AGO. THIS ISN'T ABOUT RELIGION. THIS IS ABOUT HUMAN NATURE, AND HOW MUCH IT BLOWS UNLESS ANY OUTSIDE FACTOR FORCES IT INTO LINE.

If one more person talks to me about religion in the context of this discussion, I'm going to respond in nothing but all caps for the rest of my wolf-web career.

Quote :

"None of that means that I raped or murdered anyone out of my own ignorance."

No, but you did morally bad things. You don't have to exterminate the Jews in order to demonstrate my point that, ignorant of some higher standard, including a mere societal one, you did shitty things.

4/1/2006 6:00:26 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "Especially when I first wrote down in that post that all humans are born with some inherent instict." I ignored this for two reasons. One, you had nothing to back it up. Two, in the very next fucking sentence you said that we picked up by learning, by trial and error -- in other words, not by instinct."

Nothing to back it up huh, what about everything we know as it pertains to biology, anatomy, genetics, psychology. Is all that accumulated knowledge not backing enough to understand that instict is coded by and from previous life experience in the form DNA. Is that too much a complicated concept for you to accept?

Keep using caps, it just lets everyone know how much you distain discussion based on fact rather than aggravated assumption.

And i'm suppose to be the blithering twat?

4/1/2006 6:21:30 PM

Quote :

"Bull-fucking-shit. You contradict yourself in that very statement, to say nothing of the mass of your other writings. You have made clear your position that no god is real, that they are all imaginary. That is atheism; don't try to sound all open-minded and wise by slapping another title on it."

I didn't know you believed in ESP too. Well, either way, you're a shitty mind-reader.

I cannot answer the question of God's existence or lack thereof. Neither can you. I, therefore, abandon the question as meaningless. You, on the other hand, claim to answer it -- intellectual dishonesty and arrogance at their best.

4/1/2006 6:29:36 PM

Quote :

"I STOPPED DEALING EXCLUSIVELY WITH RELIGION A WHILE AGO. THIS ISN'T ABOUT RELIGION. THIS IS ABOUT HUMAN NATURE, AND HOW MUCH IT BLOWS UNLESS ANY OUTSIDE FACTOR FORCES IT INTO LINE."

Yes, people need government for various reasons. But the point was that most atheists believe that society should avoid rules based in mysticism, not that there should be anarchy.

Quote :

"Or don't you, atheist, think that rape, murder, theft, public masturbation, and child molestation are wrong?"

Wrong to who?

4/1/2006 9:33:27 PM

Quote :

"Is all that accumulated knowledge not backing enough to understand that instict is coded by and from previous life experience in the form DNA."

Life experience is coded in DNA? That's new to me.

Sure, instinct exists. It causes us to do several things, none of which have anything to do with morality.

Quote :

"Keep using caps"

I used caps when you wrongly described my argument, either out of ignorance (which I hoped to cure by drawing your attention to reality by use of capital letters) or simple dishonesty (which I hoped to ridicule the same way).

Quote :

"I, therefore, abandon the question as meaningless."

No, you don't. You take every available opportunity to ridicule people who offer one answer, and very occasionally show disagreement with people on the other side. If you're an agnostic, you're a heavily atheist-biased agnostic.

And no, no belief in ESP here. I only read what you say.

Quote :

"But the point was that most atheists believe that society should avoid rules based in mysticism"

Except that wasn't the point. The point that McDanger originally made (and that I have been arguing against) is that human nature is not inherently bad. Nothing mystical about that.

Quote :

"Wrong to who?"

Oh; total moral relativism.

[ignore]

4/1/2006 11:19:38 PM

The organization of government is an instinct.

BEEHIVES

ANTHILLS

CONGRESSES

[Edited on April 1, 2006 at 11:30 PM. Reason : ergo human nature is self-correcting, ergo not all bad, q.e.d.]

4/1/2006 11:29:49 PM

Quote :

"No, you don't. You take every available opportunity to ridicule people who offer one answer, and very occasionally show disagreement with people on the other side. If you're an agnostic, you're a heavily atheist-biased agnostic."

Both sides cannot actually answer the question.
However, one side has the burden of proof and also zero evidence.
I'll let you guess which side that is.

4/1/2006 11:32:12 PM

^^The "q.e.d." addendum is possibly the most arrogant thing I've seen on these boards. You have it in common with MathFreak. Congratulations.

Insects lack anything resembling free agency, and so the analogy breaks down. To say nothing of other biological differences, such as predetermined castes deciding rank rather than strength or cunning.

^Fine; "heavily-biased agnostic" it is. But it isn't different enough from "atheist" to deserve a fancy name. The only things that would convince you to change you into a theist are the same things it would take to change an atheist, ergo functionally you might as well be one. I'm sorry that to say so offends you so terribly, I really am, but you calling yourself an agnostic instead of an atheist is like twins having different names; yeah, they're not the same individual, but it's the same DNA.

4/1/2006 11:44:19 PM

What support do you have for your claim that insects lack free agency?

4/1/2006 11:46:25 PM

^^ Grumpy, how fucking dumb are you?

I am not the same thing as an atheist. They have a FUCKTON more evidence in their corner than you do, but I still feel they are not qualified to answer a question with no answer.

No amount of evidence can prove or disprove the existence of god. That is my position. Why are you desperately trying to paint me as an atheist when I'm clearly not?

You should read the definition of falsifiable.

4/1/2006 11:51:29 PM

Quote :

" but you calling yourself an agnostic instead of an atheist is like twins having different names; yeah, they're not the same individual, but it's the same DNA."

Hahahahah


Doesn't that invalidate your argument though? Twins aren't defined by their DNA, it's their personality and other psychological properties that define a human being. The DNA just builds the frame, from their own, it's 2 unique things. Just like atheists and agnostics are defined by their own unique beliefs.

A true atheist absolutely believes there isn't any kind of supernatural/superhuman being/beings that could have created the world, or humanity, or anything of the sort. A true atheist should look down on agnostics. Agnostics simply just "don't know" and if shown some convincing evidence, would be a theist. You are correct in noting though that it would take the same evidence to convince an atheist as an agnostic. But, the way the two groups act in absence of evidence should be different.

4/1/2006 11:52:59 PM

Quote :

"Agnostics simply just "don't know" and if shown some convincing evidence, would be a theist."

Wrong.

And to think, all it would take is a simple visit to dictionary.com to fix your ignorance.

Here, I'll even do it for you:

Quote :

"One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God."

Some agnostics "don't know" because they are wishy washy, and evidence would in fact sway them one way or the other. Pretending they're all this way is incorrect.

4/1/2006 11:56:47 PM

What do you call someone who says they are agnostic at the same time saying God does not exist and those who think He might exist are idiots?

4/1/2006 11:57:25 PM

Quote :

"What do you call someone who says they are agnostic at the same time saying God does not exist and those who think He might exist are idiots?"

It's not that God doesn't exist.

It's that we cannot know if he exists.

This means that postulating about it is a waste of time. People who claim to have answered it one way or the other are very, very misguided.

4/1/2006 11:58:21 PM

so the answer to my question is basically that the person described in the question is not agnostic at all, right?

4/2/2006 12:00:33 AM

Cue you bringing up some quote of mine where I claim God doesn't exist

4/2/2006 12:01:18 AM

did you?

4/2/2006 12:02:46 AM

I probably said something, at some point, that could be cast in that light

I certainly used to have more atheistic tendencies than I do now -- but I realize that really, the question is unanswerable.

I have at one time been a theist, and an atheist -- and even moved back and forth a couple of times while trying to make a decision. I finally realized that the reason why the question is so confusing is because it's a trick question.

There's certainly no good reason for a rational person to believe in god's existence. I see no evidence. However, seeing as how the existence of something non-detectable isn't falsifiable, you cannot prove or disprove anything.

What about "the question is not falsifiable" do you not understand?

4/2/2006 12:05:51 AM

I just asked a very general question to some people who obviously knows more about being agnostic than I do.

4/2/2006 12:07:46 AM

The core of being agnostic is the belief that the question cannot be answered.

Therefore, agnostics and atheists are very different. One group believes the answer cannot be found, the other group claims to have found it.

[Edited on April 2, 2006 at 12:18 AM. Reason : .]

4/2/2006 12:18:35 AM

I think it's misleading of you to speak of atheists and agnostics as unified groups.

4/2/2006 12:20:11 AM

What's misleading about unifying them through their definitions?

4/2/2006 12:21:08 AM

Is it fair to say that most reverant people, Atheists and Agnostics would agree that there is no proof of God's existance (and no proof God does not exist)? Is it fair to say the only thing that seperates Agnostics from the others is that they don't want to put faith in either belief?

[Edited on April 2, 2006 at 12:23 AM. Reason : some elaboration]

4/2/2006 12:21:54 AM

Sure there are plenty of atheists who believe that if God existed, He could be found.

4/2/2006 12:22:26 AM

I wouldn't say it's that they don't want to put their faith in either belief

I'd say it's more that they do not think it makes any sense to put their faith in either belief

4/2/2006 12:23:34 AM

Interesting. So many people use the term agnostic incorrectly to describe themselves in their search for the meaning of life.

4/2/2006 12:26:30 AM

I think the term agnostic applies to people who "just don't know" as well -- that's probably the fault of our ambiguous language though.

4/2/2006 12:27:33 AM

Well, considering that agnostic literally means without knowledge, I don't know how much mileage you're going to get out of the ambiguous language thing.

4/2/2006 12:28:14 AM

We're talking about common usage here.

Look it up in any dictionary.

I even did it for you, right in this very thread.

4/2/2006 12:29:46 AM

Ignorance doesn't make the language ambiguous.

4/2/2006 12:30:51 AM

Look, the root of the word agnostic (a-gnostic) and the usage of the word in English are very different.

There are two types of agnostic folks if we're going to get technical -- and the difference between them is in motivation behind their conclusion.

One group thinks you CANNOT know, and so they claim neither faith nor disbelief. The other group just doesn't know (either they don't think about it, or don't care, or aren't sure and need further argument to sway them).

So both groups don't know -- but one group has actually concluded that you cannot, the other just hasn't made their decision yet. It's ambiguous, we should really have two different terms for these subgroups.

Stop trying to troll me, it's transparent and weak.

4/2/2006 12:34:03 AM

froshkiller doesn't troll

he enlightens

4/2/2006 12:36:25 AM

It's disingenuous of you to assign tenets to personal attitudes about the possibility of the existence of deities as if agnosticism and atheism were organized groups similar to religious sects. That's not trolling, and I'm surprised you're getting so defensive when I'm not even attacking you or disagreeing with you. Mind you, I'm not agreeing with you, either—I'm just policing what you're saying, because you're assuming an awful lot of authority with these definitive statements.

4/2/2006 12:37:28 AM

I'm using the textbook definitions.

I'm not saying agnostics belong to some institution.

I'm not saying atheists belong to some institution.

So what exactly is your point?

4/2/2006 12:45:35 AM

Cite the textbook, please.

4/2/2006 12:48:19 AM

It's a fucking dictionary.

Dictionaries have common usage in them.

Quote :

"ag·nos·tic Audio pronunciation of "agnostic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk) n. 1. 1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God."

Quote :

"a·the·ist Audio pronunciation of "atheist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st) n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."

What have I said beyond suggesting that people that fit these descriptions are in fact the term that describes them?

4/2/2006 12:56:15 AM

Ah, you know what? I misinterpreted what you said.

[Edited on April 2, 2006 at 1:10 AM. Reason : ...]

4/2/2006 1:08:56 AM

Quote :

"So you're MORE COMFORTABLE with someone who takes orders from an old storybook written by anonymous men who believed in an omnipotent imaginary friend than you are with someone who has a rational basis for their morality? And don't play that "plainly viewable moral code" shit, son—it's called social contract."

First off, to say a belief or non-belief basis for morality is any more rational than the other is asinine. Knowing nothing else about the individual was fundamental to my point and plainly stated. I see no particular reason to expect adherence to any universal social contract. Self-preservation and self-promotion are much stronger motivating factors, expecially if there is not an all-knowing, all-powerful governance to answer to. And "plainy viewable moral code" is a factor. While the basics might be obvious there is absolutely no bassis for establishing possible attitude or decisions on more specific subjects.

Oh and they have discovered physical text specimens that date to within a decade of the life of Paul and considering the authorship is pretty uniform throughout there is no reason to believe that the texts weren't written in the company of the apostle. The fact that the original author doesn't sign his name at the end does not make the text any less viable. Heck, the New Testament has a pretty solid foundation as far as ancient texts go.

4/2/2006 1:15:47 AM

Quote :

"I see no particular reason to expect adherence to any universal social contract. Self-preservation and self-promotion are much stronger motivating factors, expecially if there is not an all-knowing, all-powerful governance to answer to."

PROVE IT.

4/2/2006 1:17:30 AM

^^ I'd say a social contract is much more rational than believing in a religion.

It's called a truce. What is irrational about a truce?

[Edited on April 2, 2006 at 1:17 AM. Reason : .]

4/2/2006 1:17:31 AM