Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 07:21 AM Jun 2014

Maher to Stewart: ‘Drugs are good, religion is bad’ and Obama’s spirituality is ‘bullsh*t’

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/24/maher-to-stewart-drugs-are-good-religion-bad-and-obamas-spirituality-is-bullsht/

By Tom Boggioni
Tuesday, June 24, 2014 0:58 EDT



In a meeting of the minds, Bill Maher, host of HBO’s Real Time, stopped by Jon Stewart’s Daily Show to talk about drugs, atheism, politics, President Obama’s claims to spirituality, and the New York Mets.

Discussing their careers, Stewart asked Maher if there are things that he has advocated for in the past that he feels he may have had some effect influencing public perceptions.

“Absolutely,” Maher replied, “People used to ask me would you run for office and that is such a silly question, I could never. And if I did, my slogan would be ‘Drugs are good and religion is bad.’ ”

Maher admitted that he feels that the “needle has moved” on both of those topics.

more at link
184 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Maher to Stewart: ‘Drugs are good, religion is bad’ and Obama’s spirituality is ‘bullsh*t’ (Original Post) cbayer Jun 2014 OP
Maher is of course exaggerating for effect. trotsky Jun 2014 #1
That is taking the positive approach. zeemike Jun 2014 #2
Except that is a NTS argument. Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #3
Well you will have to inform me what the NTS argument is. zeemike Jun 2014 #4
What do you mean by edhopper Jun 2014 #5
no true scotsman. This argument is so frequently made here that I mistakenly believed it could be Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #7
no true scotsman Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #6
Well the problem is that you make no distinction between belief and an organized religion. zeemike Jun 2014 #11
I made no such statement. Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #20
First you say you made no such statement. zeemike Jun 2014 #22
Science does own that. And now refutes it on sold, provable grounds. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #29
And has moved on to more profitable genetic engineering. zeemike Jun 2014 #57
Declaring something a sin, and promulagting that idea to a huge percenatge of the planet AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #61
Well then in that case belief in God is normal too. zeemike Jun 2014 #82
Predisposition to belief in the supernatural is normal. I agree. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #84
Nor does it mean it is a bad thing... zeemike Jun 2014 #91
There are no goals, standards, or purposes to sex in biology LostOne4Ever Jun 2014 #99
I thought the theory of evolution negated any need for a design. zeemike Jun 2014 #105
Natural selection does negate the need for a design LostOne4Ever Jun 2014 #110
purpose does not implies design. zeemike Jun 2014 #114
Purpose is synonymous with goal LostOne4Ever Jun 2014 #137
Well it seems we have descended into the meaning of words. zeemike Jun 2014 #139
Many debates end up being about the meaning of words LostOne4Ever Jun 2014 #143
You profoundly misunderstand the Theory of Evolution. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #116
The difference between design and purpose is time. zeemike Jun 2014 #118
Don't play the wounded animal. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #119
Not at all. zeemike Jun 2014 #124
I said you are profoundly ignorant of the theory of evolution. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #125
And I agreed with you. zeemike Jun 2014 #127
Not my *my* standards. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #128
Well I just assumed your standards are the same as academia standards. zeemike Jun 2014 #129
"I thought the theory of evolution negated any need for a design." AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #134
Well if there is no designer there can be no design. zeemike Jun 2014 #135
I already explained this to you twice. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #136
And of course "Design out of chaos" is a proven theory zeemike Jun 2014 #140
Of course its peer reviewed. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #144
I was talking about the design out of chaos part. zeemike Jun 2014 #146
It's a paraphrase. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #147
Well I am sorry my posts frustrate you. zeemike Jun 2014 #149
If ONLY this was a debate. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #150
So it is not a debate zeemike Jun 2014 #151
Yup. See post 105 again, and re-think what you 'thought'. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #169
you left out 2. purpose, plan, or intention that exists ... in a material object. Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #179
Well as I have tried to point out before zeemike Jun 2014 #180
Offhand I can think of two purposes to sex. rug Jun 2014 #106
Do you mean biological or personal? LostOne4Ever Jun 2014 #111
Biologically, sex continues a species and is the vehicle of evolution. rug Jun 2014 #121
Oh? LostOne4Ever Jun 2014 #138
Are you denying the role sexual reproduction plays in evolution? rug Jun 2014 #155
I am denying that evolution has any purpose or goal. LostOne4Ever Jun 2014 #156
An advantage to what? rug Jun 2014 #158
An advantage to it passing its genes to the next generation (nt) LostOne4Ever Jun 2014 #159
Why is that an advantage? rug Jun 2014 #160
It is thought that it is advantageous because it confers the organism greater LostOne4Ever Jun 2014 #161
An advantage is an end. rug Jun 2014 #162
By what definition do you reach that conclusion? LostOne4Ever Jun 2014 #164
End is also a synonym for goal. rug Jun 2014 #165
Water does not flow uphill LostOne4Ever Jun 2014 #166
Yet it always seeks the means of survival. rug Jun 2014 #167
Except when it evolves a species into a dead end... LostOne4Ever Jun 2014 #168
Nihilism itself is a dead end. rug Jun 2014 #170
Again that is your belief LostOne4Ever Jun 2014 #181
No, nihilism is your belief. And it is nothing more than that. rug Jun 2014 #182
Never claimed nihilism was your belief (nt). LostOne4Ever Jun 2014 #184
That's depressing. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #117
Tell me about it. rug Jun 2014 #122
Um, no. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #115
Well I doubt that I will ever be able to explain to you zeemike Jun 2014 #120
There you go mis-using 'purpose' again. Explain cats. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #123
Why should we talk about cats? zeemike Jun 2014 #126
Cats, like all placental mammals, appear to share a common ancestor. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #130
So let me understand your point. zeemike Jun 2014 #131
No. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #133
And yet it is pleasure that motivates in humans. zeemike Jun 2014 #148
Call it a stretch all you want. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #173
Well sure, you can use a hammer as a doorstop zeemike Jun 2014 #174
I can't have kids. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #175
You are confusing morality with religion hueymahl Jun 2014 #79
Not necessarily. Htom Sirveaux Jun 2014 #9
that would just be a revealed truth that happened to correspond to observed reality Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #10
I agree that bad beliefs are not less religious for being bad. Htom Sirveaux Jun 2014 #12
I think your argument ends up effectivelty denying the existence of an external omnipotent deity. Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #19
How does it deny that? n/t Htom Sirveaux Jun 2014 #21
If there are only "errant" messages from god Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #23
Are you saying that the point of gods is to declare particular ideas certain and indisputable? Htom Sirveaux Jun 2014 #25
pretty much sums up traditional religious belief systems. Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #70
"You can't just carve out all the belief systems you don't wish to defend..." goldent Jun 2014 #112
Science, not so much. Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #113
Um, no. truebrit71 Jun 2014 #53
Completely agree. trotsky Jun 2014 #55
Agreed. truebrit71 Jun 2014 #56
And, like most absolutist opinions, is wrong. rug Jun 2014 #87
Not really. truebrit71 Jun 2014 #100
I take it as an insult that he calls the president's faith a lie. hrmjustin Jun 2014 #8
This message was self-deleted by its author edhopper Jun 2014 #13
That's not what Maher said. Htom Sirveaux Jun 2014 #15
Oh edhopper Jun 2014 #17
That's the thing that bugs me too Dorian Gray Jun 2014 #14
You don't think it is even remotely possible that politicians pretend to be religious? Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #24
Doh, and grass is green; unless it turns brown InAbLuEsTaTe Jun 2014 #78
It's possible anybody would do it Dorian Gray Jun 2014 #85
It is disgusting and he should apologize for it. hrmjustin Jun 2014 #26
How is not believing someone "hatred"? trotsky Jun 2014 #27
Honestly Dorian Gray Jun 2014 #86
Didn't they date? hrmjustin Jun 2014 #88
He doesn't attend services. Neither did Bush. But, neither did I and I merrily Jun 2014 #176
So Maher says that, and he's a jerk. trotsky Jun 2014 #16
Bill Maher is an entertainer. He makes his money off of saying really outrageous things. cbayer Jun 2014 #30
lol. hrmjustin Jun 2014 #31
I do think edhopper Jun 2014 #18
Do you have proof? ForgoTheConsequence Jun 2014 #28
Just my opinion edhopper Jun 2014 #34
What in the world would lead you to say that? cbayer Jun 2014 #32
Just my sense of the man edhopper Jun 2014 #35
No, you can think he is whatever you think he is. cbayer Jun 2014 #39
Plenty of politicians are believers edhopper Jun 2014 #41
I think many politicians, like most people, keep their cbayer Jun 2014 #43
And there you generalize edhopper Jun 2014 #47
You are correct. I did generalize and retract that. cbayer Jun 2014 #52
Accepted edhopper Jun 2014 #59
I agree with what you are saying here. cbayer Jun 2014 #62
I enjoy Maher's show edhopper Jun 2014 #65
I iike parts of it. cbayer Jun 2014 #66
He's a comedian, and if he makes me laugh edhopper Jun 2014 #68
I am a huge fan of comedy and stand up in particular. cbayer Jun 2014 #69
Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee edhopper Jun 2014 #74
What's the difference okasha Jun 2014 #58
I didn't say atheist edhopper Jun 2014 #60
I used "agnostic/atheist" okasha Jun 2014 #63
I don't "hope" Obama is agnostic edhopper Jun 2014 #67
And who would that be? AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #73
At least you don't understand the argument Goblinmonger Jun 2014 #80
Eh? I'm not making fun okasha Jun 2014 #81
I still haven't seen an answer to your original question. rug Jun 2014 #89
We're obviously not going to. okasha Jun 2014 #92
I answered edhopper Jun 2014 #98
Falling back on okasha Jun 2014 #101
That you see no difference edhopper Jun 2014 #102
But I didn't say I saw no difference okasha Jun 2014 #103
That you think the motivations of both are the same edhopper Jun 2014 #104
Didn't say that, either. okasha Jun 2014 #109
Well, underlying the assumption you and many other believers have made about Hitler seems to be: trotsky Jun 2014 #40
Some biographers insist that Hitler was a Catholic; altar boy as a matter of fact Brettongarcia Jun 2014 #132
Obama is a devote Christian. hrmjustin Jun 2014 #33
Maybe edhopper Jun 2014 #36
This message was self-deleted by its author hrmjustin Jun 2014 #37
many of us question the existence of God. This is nothing new for believers. hrmjustin Jun 2014 #38
He's a politician edhopper Jun 2014 #42
I believe him and see no reason to question his faith. what makes you question his faith? hrmjustin Jun 2014 #45
His background, schooling, edhopper Jun 2014 #48
ok but I take him at his word. hrmjustin Jun 2014 #50
That's fine too. edhopper Jun 2014 #51
I agree, more or less Act_of_Reparation Jun 2014 #44
Technically everyone is agnostic Lordquinton Jun 2014 #46
Point taken. hrmjustin Jun 2014 #49
And those few who are not are some of the most outrageously annoying people on earth. cbayer Jun 2014 #54
nice broadbrush smear there cbayer. Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #71
Alert happy? hrmjustin Jun 2014 #72
It's mostly believers who claim to not be agnostic Lordquinton Jun 2014 #75
I don't know if that's accurate or not, but they are obnoxious whether they be cbayer Jun 2014 #107
It's only not worth keeping score over because you don't like the results Lordquinton Jun 2014 #153
I have no idea what you are talking about. cbayer Jun 2014 #157
I want Pat Robertson to lose. trotsky Jun 2014 #171
Lose what? He didn't even win anything in 1988. rug Jun 2014 #183
Not true. A person whose view is that they know is not an agnostic. eomer Jun 2014 #64
Yea, I know that's how it is often applied Lordquinton Jun 2014 #76
Do you find that to be true here, because I have never seen that. cbayer Jun 2014 #108
I never said here Lordquinton Jun 2014 #152
So, you don't find it to be true here then? cbayer Jun 2014 #163
It is about what they claim to believe or disbelieve. Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #142
It's about what they really believe. eomer Jun 2014 #145
not really. Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #141
There is some truth to that Lordquinton Jun 2014 #154
Fair enough, but we have some theists here who claim to be agnostics Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #172
Better living through chemistry? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #77
If Obama was an atheist LostOne4Ever Jun 2014 #83
Why? rug Jun 2014 #90
In general LostOne4Ever Jun 2014 #93
Do you not think he could be an atheist hiding his atheism? Hence the brief. rug Jun 2014 #94
If his goal was to hide his atheism LostOne4Ever Jun 2014 #95
Oh, do you think Hillary is a closet atheist too? rug Jun 2014 #96
Did I say that? LostOne4Ever Jun 2014 #97
Did the needle move on the Presidential level? merrily Jun 2014 #177
These are two commedians, telling jokes. How seriously should we take this? Brettongarcia Jun 2014 #178

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
1. Maher is of course exaggerating for effect.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 10:31 AM
Jun 2014

But I would definitely agree with a modified version:

"Both drugs and religion can be good, but when they are bad, they are terrible."

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
2. That is taking the positive approach.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:17 AM
Jun 2014

I like that.

But the big error Bill and most progressives makes is in the blanket attack against a belief instead of attacking the ones who pervert it.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
3. Except that is a NTS argument.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:25 AM
Jun 2014

You can't just carve out all the belief systems you don't wish to defend and declare them perverted. They have as valid a claim to being the divine truth as any other belief system.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
4. Well you will have to inform me what the NTS argument is.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:41 AM
Jun 2014

I don't know all the anagrams out there.

But all religion becomes perverted with time...but that is not to say that some of the people do, and in fact in every belief there is always a few who are not corrupted by the world.

So the belief system attack is non productive and actually perpetuates the corrupt.
And religion does not claim to be divine so that is a red herring.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
7. no true scotsman. This argument is so frequently made here that I mistakenly believed it could be
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 12:27 PM
Jun 2014

coded.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
6. no true scotsman
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 12:26 PM
Jun 2014

Your claim that religions become perverted is an attempt to eliminate all the "bad cases" from consideration.
Religion does not claim to be divine, religions, or most religions, claim to have access to divinely revealed truth, and assert the existence of deities that provide this alleged truth.

From an outsider's perspective, in aggregate, religion appears to me to be a negative influence on human society. I'm not going to buy into your "perverted religions" argument, because it is a cheap way of avoiding agreeing with the claim I just made. There is no rational way for outsiders to distinguish the irrational assertions made by religions, to categorize those which are "unperverted" from those that are "perverted". It is all childish nonsense, fairy tales, myths, legends. Some of it is harmless in itself, some of it horrendous, however the fact that religions train people to believe irrational nonsense, both good and bad and indifferent, is not harmless.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
11. Well the problem is that you make no distinction between belief and an organized religion.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 01:09 PM
Jun 2014

You want to say that if you believe in a spiritual world then you must be supportive of an organized religon...
All organizations become corrupt with time, but that does not mean that the ideas and principles that they were founded on are false.

And it is corruption that is the negative influence not the beliefe...and I suggest you put the blame on the problem not the idea....that is what I am saying.
When you put the blame on the idea it makes people defensive and drives them to the religion not away from it.

But the NTS argument can work both ways...like no true scientist, and no true progressive. or no true liberal, would believe the childish nonsense, fairy tales, myths, legends...because they know the true and complete nature of reality.
Not much different than those who believe the bible knows it all...and just as arrogant.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
20. I made no such statement.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:22 PM
Jun 2014

Your unorganized informal religious beliefs are no different to me as religious beliefs than organized formal ones. (Organized formal beliefs are in my opinion a much graver danger to society because their institutions have more political power.) I simply objected to the attempt to place "perverted beliefs" outside of "true religion", which you are also attempting to do.

The "idea" is revealed by individuals, by organizations, etc. It has no existence outside of its communication to others. The problem with religious ideas of all sorts, good bad indifferent, is that they are not subject to evidence based reasoning, but instead are deemed "true" by "other ways of knowing" - or false, as in the case at hand of "perverted beliefs" by similar methods. If your "spiritualism" informs you that you should steal infants and sacrifice them to your gods, that is your revealed truth and is no more or less valid than any other religious belief, even though it is obviously morally repugnant. If your religious beliefs inform you that same sex marriage is an abomination to the gods, that is your revealed truth and is no more or less valid than any other religious belief, even though it is obviously morally repugnant.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
22. First you say you made no such statement.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:43 PM
Jun 2014

And then you make the statement;
"Your unorganized informal religious beliefs are no different to me as religious beliefs than organized formal ones."
I get the feeling we could run around that circle all day.

But you lump all spiritual belief in the same pot...and say if you are one then you are all.
There have been and still are scientist who believe in genocide and selective breeding of humans (morally repugnant to most)...would it be fair to say that science owns them?...and that scientific belief is the cause of it?

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
29. Science does own that. And now refutes it on sold, provable grounds.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:12 PM
Jun 2014

Planned Parenthood has no shred of the eugenics beliefs today, that Sanger had in her time, for example.

But the roman catholic church with 1.2bn adherents, holds that same sex marriage is the work of the devil, homosexuality is a sin, contraception is a sin, abortion is murder, physician assisted suicide is a sin, etc.

Science can DEMONSTRATE today that eugenics is fundamentally bad, leaving morals out the question entirely. Diversity is strength, not uniformity. Uniformity leads to extinction by way of very simple, silly things, like viruses.

Where is your element of the RCC that can demonstrate and PROVE that homosexuality is in fact, not a sin, and revise church doctrine accordingly?

Such a mechanism does not appear to exist. I have little hope that it shall be invented in my lifetime.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
57. And has moved on to more profitable genetic engineering.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:15 PM
Jun 2014

Sin is a concept not a fact of the physical world...just like a law is a concept of justice not a provable fact.

Can science prove that homosexuality is normal? Or that it is not?...no they can't because normal is a concept...and idea not something with physical properties that they can show with experiments.
They can say it is normal, can treat it as normal, and believe it is normal but they cannot prove it is normal with science.
Same with sin...you can say it is bad and that god does not like it, but no one can prove that.

I am not just playing with words here...the point is that your attack is flawed because you attack an idea and faith as if they are the cause and they are not...it is actions that cause bad things to happen not ideas...and if ideas are responsible for the evil actions by religion then then because Eugenics was a scientific idea then science is the cause of it.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
61. Declaring something a sin, and promulagting that idea to a huge percenatge of the planet
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:36 PM
Jun 2014

is a good way to marginalize and foment discrimination against those people. Don't pretend it happens in a vacuum and hurts no one. Each of those items injures people well outside the actual catholic community.

"Can science prove that homosexuality is normal? Or that it is not?"

Yes it can, and has, for homo sapiens sapiens and hundreds of other species and I'm shocked that you're ignorant of that.
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

"Is homosexuality a mental disorder? No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder."

Are you fucking serious coming at me with that bullshit?

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
82. Well then in that case belief in God is normal too.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 07:17 PM
Jun 2014

Sense it is common in all cultures...but do you call it normal?
No, you would call it delusional not normal...the normal would be belief in facts that can be proven in our material world.

And just because it is not normal in a biological system does not mean it is wrong, and that is where you are confused...you confuse normal with right and wrong.
But biology being what it is requires a penis and a uterus to procreate and that is the norm...it is not biological normal if you don't have those two elements...and despite what we might think that is the whole reason for sex in biology.
And that is science not faith.

So now I will sit back and be castigated for saying what is obviously true...and maybe be alerted on as a bigot, misogynist, or a homophobic because I said it.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
84. Predisposition to belief in the supernatural is normal. I agree.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 07:40 PM
Jun 2014

And science well documents this. So what? That doesn't make the supernatural real, or mean it's a good thing.

"normal would be belief in facts that can be proven in our material world"
Well-documented to be not the case. Again, why do you not already know this. Humans are also predisposed to seeing patterns in random noise. Patternicity doesn't mean there is an actual pattern there to observe.

"you confuse normal with right and wrong."
I am not the one that is confused.

"But biology being what it is requires a penis and a uterus to procreate and that is the norm...it is not biological normal if you don't have those two elements...and despite what we might think that is the whole reason for sex in biology.
And that is science not faith."

You presuppose that sex/pair bonds are exclusively beneficial to a species as only a means of procreation. That is wildly ignorant.
And no, science does NOT tell us that 'that is the whole reason for sex'.

No, you will be castigated for saying something that is NOT true, and also disturbingly close to, if not outright bigoted.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
91. Nor does it mean it is a bad thing...
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 08:15 PM
Jun 2014

And in fact in primitive cultures it is linked directly with nature.
But it seems to me you want it to be a bad thing because there are bad people who use it to justify their deeds.

And again you confuse the rewards of sex with the purpose of it...the pleasure from sex is the reward for an action no one would ever even think about doing were it not for the pleaser of it...that is biology in action...using rewards for the body and mind to achieve a biological goal.

And pair bonding is also biological because of biological differences in male and female...that too is obvious.
But today it is no longer important because we are no longer hunter gathers but units of consumption in a system never before experienced on this earth...and we have come to believe that it is normal and seemingly denying the science of biology.

LostOne4Ever

(9,262 posts)
99. There are no goals, standards, or purposes to sex in biology
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 09:10 PM
Jun 2014

That all implies a design. Until it has been proven to some degree that there is a design, biology is completely agnostic on that.

Also, anything regarding living organisms is biological. It has nothing to do with the difference between males and females.

Further, in biology there are methods of procreation without a "penis and uterus."

As for the word "normal"

Well I think this video says it better and more humorously than I can:

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
105. I thought the theory of evolution negated any need for a design.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 10:51 PM
Jun 2014

that things happened through natural selection. And just because there is no design does not make the case there is no reason for it...nothing in nature is done for no reason. Whether is is plant or animal there is a reason for it even if we don't always understand it right away.

But sure there is asexual reproduction, but not in higher life forms...so that would suggest there was a reason for it that was biological, because asexual reproduction did not make it to prime time.

And sense sexual reproduction is usual, and typical, it is by that definition normal.

LostOne4Ever

(9,262 posts)
110. Natural selection does negate the need for a design
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 02:44 AM
Jun 2014

However, purpose implies design. It means that nature has a end goal for all organisms. There is no goal or purpose for it at all. It evolved because the situation of nature at that time were favorable to it evolving...ie natural selection.

A comet hits a pride of lions, killing all but one male. There was no reason for it happening but this natural disaster selected for the lone male survivor. This too is natural selection.

Higher life forms? What do you mean by "higher"?

Do you mean superior? If so, according to who or what? By what criteria and what makes those criteria better than others? I don't think biologist use the term that way. Do you mean have they have undergone more evolution? Bacteria have evolved just as much as we have if not more. Do I need mention the eugenic implications of that definition? Or do you mean more successful/further up the clade diagram? Bacteria and insects have us outnumbered several times over and are pretty far up that diagram as well.

Asexual lifeforms outnumber sexual lifeforms from a numbers PoV. On my fingertip there are millions of bacteria. How is that make sexual reproduction "normal?"

I think you are making some assumptions and confusing purpose with effect. Purpose is synonymous with goal. The latter is not. There is intention or desired outcome with a purpose. A reason for existence. This is theological. That is not the case here. Natural selection is not forward looking. The reason is that the situation just happened to be right at that time. No intention, no goal.

And it is expected (typical and usual) that there will be some members of a sexual species who might not be attracted to the opposite sex (and lets not get into what sex/gender means biologically...that is a whole other headache) and some (like me) that will experience no sexual attraction at all.

Just because sexual reproduction is normal does not mean that other forms are not normal as well. This is not an either/or situation.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
114. purpose does not implies design.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 10:11 AM
Jun 2014

If a bunch of bacteria are dieing by the millions because of a antiseptic and a few of them live through it because they have a harder outer layer there is a purpose to the harder layer...survival of the fittest.

But the reason your meteor hit the pride of lions in your example is because it came too close the the earth gravity, and the lyons happen to be in that place at the time...and the reason the lyons where there is probably because the hunting is good in those parts...nothing happens with no reason because all things are connected in our reality.
The error some make is that they believe that there is a god that makes all these decisions like killing the lyons with a meteor...a very low understanding of reality in my opnion...but never the less some of the religions use it to manipulate people with...and the anti theist love it, because it re enforces their own beliefe...that it is all bullshit and everything is really just an accident, and what we see is all there is...and that too is a low understanding IMO.

No I did not mean superiour...I meant multi cellular creatures with developed nervous systems and complex brain...that is what we generally know as "higher" life forms.

But if you believe that we evolved from single cell life then we evolved with sexual reproduction just as most complex life forms do...and so that infers there was a reason in natural selection for that...that they did better because of it in some way and so evolved that way...
If the theory of evolution is real then there is reason for how we are...

LostOne4Ever

(9,262 posts)
137. Purpose is synonymous with goal
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 02:11 PM
Jun 2014

There is no goal. There is no purpose.

If a bunch of bacteria are dieing by the millions because of a antiseptic and a few of them live through it because they have a harder outer layer there is a purpose to the harder layer...survival of the fittest.


First off, that is not survival of the fittest. Fitness, in a biological sense, simply means those most likely to pass their genes on to the next generation. Secondly, that is not the purpose. They did not evolve that harder outer layer (I really don't think the term "harder applies here but lets roll with that) for the purpose of protecting themselves from the antiseptic. The cause of the "harder layer" trait coming into being is probably random genetic mutations. This mutation gave them an advantage when the antiseptic was applied and they survived to pass on their genes.

That is how evolution works.

For it to be the purpose of the shell it would require foreknowledge or forethought about the possibility antisceptic coming, and developed the "harder" outer layer specifically to protect against that. That is design. Evolution has no mind, no thought, and can not see ahead of time. It can not plan ahead, and it can not predict events in the future. It can not have goals.

Your explanation is teleological and not compatible with biological science.

But the reason your meteor hit the pride of lions in your example is because it came too close the the earth gravity, and the lyons happen to be in that place at the time...and the reason the lyons where there is probably because the hunting is good in those parts...nothing happens with no reason because all things are connected in our reality.
The error some make is that they believe that there is a god that makes all these decisions like killing the lyons with a meteor...a very low understanding of reality in my opnion...but never the less some of the religions use it to manipulate people with...and the anti theist love it, because it re enforces their own beliefe...that it is all bullshit and everything is really just an accident, and what we see is all there is...and that too is a low understanding IMO.


You are equivocating differing definitions of reason here. Reason can simply mean cause, or it can mean justification, or refer to a process of thinking. Evolution does not think. It does not have a goal or design.

Purpose means that you have a goal. You indirectly said it yourself in your explanation. You claimed the goal of a "harder" cell wall was to protect against antiseptics. Again, it was "caused" by a mutation and became prevalent because it provided the organism an advantage. It did not arise with the goal of protecting it from antiseptics.

The reason (cause) of the meteor hitting the earth is gravity and trajectory. It had no "reason" (thought process) to hit earth in that it did not think "I will hit the earth today." It had no goal to achieve. Lions have brains and are able to reason (thought process). They had a reason (both cause and thought process) to be there.

You say nothing happens without a reason. If by that you mean a cause, then what caused the initial cause? Its the turtles all the way down argument. If you mean thought process what thought process does a rock have? Either way, there will be things that happen without reason.

How does the belief that god caused something reinforce the belief that everything is just an accident? Seem like a contradictory statement. And not just anti-theists believe that all we see is all that there is. That is my position as an existential nihilist. What am I not understanding?

No I did not mean superiour...I meant multi cellular creatures with developed nervous systems and complex brain...that is what we generally know as "higher" life forms.


When getting my BS in Biology I have never come across that definition in any biology class. Certainly not in evolutionary biology studying Darwin and Lamark. Could you source this for me?

What makes being multi-cellular/having a nervous system/etc so special? More deserving of being called normal than your what I guess you would call "lower" lifeforms?

BTW: Starfish and jellyfish are "complex" multicellular organisms with a nervous system and they reproduce asexually.

But if you believe that we evolved from single cell life then we evolved with sexual reproduction just as most complex life forms do...and so that infers there was a reason in natural selection for that...that they did better because of it in some way and so evolved that way...
If the theory of evolution is real then there is reason for how we are...


Again, a shifting meaning of reason, purpose, etc. Natural selection had no purpose or reason (thinking) in choosing those traits. Its just the way the dice fell that gave those individuals with those traits an advantage.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
139. Well it seems we have descended into the meaning of words.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 02:46 PM
Jun 2014

and how they are applied.
For instance we are talking about sexual reproduction, and you are saying there is no goal or purpose to it?...that seems to fly in the face of reality to me.

And yes higher life forms is used...

Patenting of Higher Life Forms and Human Biological Materials:An Introduction to the Issues January, 2000;revised February, 2001
http://www.academia.edu/267522/Patenting_of_Higher_Life_Forms_and_Human_Biological_Materials_An_Introduction_to_the_Issues


But then in the end, random variability does have a perpouse then don't it?...or is it just a random variability of a random variability?
Seems to me to be a moot point whether it happened by accident or not, it happened and because it did gave it a perpose...for survival of the fittest.

LostOne4Ever

(9,262 posts)
143. Many debates end up being about the meaning of words
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 04:47 PM
Jun 2014

The paper you linked is not a biological science paper. Its about ethics and patent laws.

We are sympathetic to both perspectives,but view this paper as a manageable introduction to a complicated field of law, public policy and ethics that has until recently been the domain of specialists.


It even says that it is creating a definition for higher life forms specifically for that single paper:

1For purposes of this document, “higher life forms” are defined as multicellular organisms, and “humanbiological materials” as biological materials or products of human origin or intended for incorporation intothe human phenotype or genotype, including but not necessarily limited to DNA sequences, cell lines,tissues, and organs.


Further, I said specifically, that I never heard it defined the way you are describing in any class, not that I have never heard the term before. When I have heard it, it is usually in reference to position on a clade diagram.

In fact, iirc the only times I have ever heard it was either in the context of someone speaking colloquially using over generalized and common vocabulary in lieu of the exact terminology they usually demand in papers and reports, or in references to theories older than the theory of evolution itself.

This scala naturæ, described in Historia animalium, classified organisms in relation to a hierarchical "Ladder of Life" or "Chain of Being", placing them according to their complexity of structure and function, with organisms that showed greater vitality and ability to move described as "higher organisms".[6] Aristotle believed that features of living organisms showed clearly that they must have had what he called a final cause, that is to say that they had been designed for a purpose.[9] He explicitly rejected the view of Empedocles that living creatures might have originated by chance.

Other Greek philosophers, such as Zeno of Citium (334–262 BC) the founder of the Stoic school of philosophy, agreed with Aristotle and other earlier philosophers that nature showed clear evidence of being designed for a purpose; this view is known as teleology.[11] [10]


Huxley would make advocacy of evolution a cornerstone of the program of the X Club to reform and professionalise science by displacing natural theology with naturalism and to end the domination of British natural science by the clergy. By the early 1870s in English-speaking countries, thanks partly to these efforts, evolution had become the mainstream scientific explanation for the origin of species


Seems we are getting right back to the point that purpose implies design.

Anyway, higher species is not listed in the glossary of biological terms that I can find:

http://www.phschool.com/science/biology_place/glossary/
http://www.sciencedictionary.org/biology/
http://www.macroevolution.net/biology-dictionary.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_biology

Mainly I am getting hits from forums and from things like yahoo answers.

But then in the end, random variability does have a perpouse then don't it?...or is it just a random variability of a random variability?
Seems to me to be a moot point whether it happened by accident or not, it happened and because it did gave it a perpose...for survival of the fittest.


Again, purpose implies intention which implies design and a goal...which means it is not random.

If it happened by accident then there is no design, no goal, and no purpose.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
116. You profoundly misunderstand the Theory of Evolution.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 10:46 AM
Jun 2014

Probably part of the problem here.

Design is unavoidable. What is not needed, is a designer.

Reproduction (copying) with variation, plus selective pressure = design.
No designer is required. So when you say 'purpose' you are completely off the map. You've got all this pretty much entirely backwards.

Again, reason implies designer/purpose. "to intend; design."

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
118. The difference between design and purpose is time.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 11:19 AM
Jun 2014

Design is about the future and purpose is about the past.
When we ask what the purpose is for something it is because it already exists...and when we talk about design it is with intent for the future...you don't design something that already exists and you don't ask what is the purpose for something that does not exist.

But I know I am profoundly ignorant because I challenge you...that goes without saying...no one should challenge someone who knows the truth of it all unless they are ignorant.
And some have made science their god, because they claim it knows it all...the truth is far from that...and so become what they hate...the self righteous authority on the nature of reality.

I have no concept of God...because I know I can never grasp the concept in the first place...I only know that this universe and our existence in it is far from understood by any mortal with a brain no matter how big it is...and it is ego, that makes us think we do or can understand it.

All I really know is that there is far more to our existence than we know or can know...and what we know about matter and space is kindergarten knowledge...despite what we want to think.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
119. Don't play the wounded animal.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 11:36 AM
Jun 2014

I said you were profoundly ignorant of the Theory of Evolution. One issue.
A fact that you have adequately demonstrated in this thread.
Don't pretend that I called you profoundly ignorant and dropped it at that.

"Design is about the future and purpose is about the past."
I can make shit up too.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
124. Not at all.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 11:49 AM
Jun 2014

I will readily admit I am profoundly ignorant by your standards.
And that does not bother me at all, because my self worth and self esteem does not depend on your standards of what intelligence is.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
127. And I agreed with you.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:05 PM
Jun 2014

By your standards I AM profoundly ignorant of the theory of evolution.
If I were to take a test on it I might pass it, but only because I know what the answers should be...and if I questioned the answers I would fail.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
128. Not my *my* standards.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:08 PM
Jun 2014

You explicitly stated multiple things that are explicitly the opposite of what evolution holds true, specifically and most demonstrably, around 'design'.

You had them literally, 180 degrees backwards.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
129. Well I just assumed your standards are the same as academia standards.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:15 PM
Jun 2014

And mine are not...which makes me by their standards profoundly ignorant.
Being 180 degrees out of step will do that to you.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
134. "I thought the theory of evolution negated any need for a design."
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 01:09 PM
Jun 2014

That is ignorant of the Theory of Evolution.

ToE obviates the need for a DESIGNER, not design.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
135. Well if there is no designer there can be no design.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 01:30 PM
Jun 2014

sense one is the creator of it.

de·sign
/dəˈzīn/
noun
noun: design; plural noun: designs
1. a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made.
"he has just unveiled his design for the new museum"
synonyms:
plan, blueprint, drawing, sketch, outline, map, plot, diagram, draft, representation, scheme, model More
"a design for the offices"
the art or action of conceiving of and producing a plan or drawing.

"good design can help the reader understand complicated information"
an arrangement of lines or shapes created to form a pattern or decoration.
"pottery with a lovely blue and white design"




AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
136. I already explained this to you twice.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 01:52 PM
Jun 2014

Hence; ignorance. The appearance of design is not the same thing as design at the hand of a intelligent designer.

As I said, "Reproduction (copying) with variation, plus selective pressure = design."

Universal Darwinism: If you have creatures that vary, if there is a struggle for life such that nearly all the creatures die, and if the very few that survive pass on whatever characteristic allowed them to survive, their offspring must be better adapted to their environment than their ancestors.

Daniel Dennett paraphrases that with the idea of "Design out of chaos without the aid of Mind".

This is central to evolutionary theory.


The Theory of Evolution isn't going to come tumbling down because zeemike looked in a dictionary at the word 'design'.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
140. And of course "Design out of chaos" is a proven theory
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 03:05 PM
Jun 2014

With peer reviewed studies.

But I have no desire at all for that theory to come tumbling down...it is a theory that is acceptable to me and I wish it to stay...but having said that I don't have any trouble questioning it at all, because I am not invested in it being accepted as absolute truth as perhaps you are.
And I happen to believe that theory is meant to be questioned and that no theory is or can be universally true and complete.

Nor am I invested in the theory of a creator but I feel no different about that theory than I do about evolution...neither of them have a complete or universal answer to the mysteries of our existence that abounds.

IMO the failure of science as well as religion is the insistence that they have definitive answers when it is obvious as hell to me that they don't...and spend their time fighting over who is right and who is wrong, and one is just as bad as the other in insisting that you must believe them or else be labeled as ignorant or ungodly...it sucks, because science is and should be above all of that.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
144. Of course its peer reviewed.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 04:57 PM
Jun 2014

The Theory of Evolution is one of the most prodigious generators of studies known.


If it is ever disproven (and attempts are made every day) I will move on to the next working theory that supplants it, whatever that may be. (Doubt it but it is a possibility)

"And I happen to believe that theory is meant to be questioned and that no theory is or can be universally true and complete."

'Universally true and complete' has nothing at all to do with your mis-use of 'design'.


You're going to have to do better than pretend that science and religion are on equal footing here, that one explains the universe and our place in it, just as well as the other. Peddle that shit elsewhere. Human made gods are too small to account for the universe and it's wonders.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
146. I was talking about the design out of chaos part.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 06:57 PM
Jun 2014

which of course cannot be studied because it is an explanation for a theory not one itself.

And I don't think it will ever be disproven...it can't be because is partly true. And a part of the truth is a part of the truth but not the whole. Which again is my complaint here, that it is presented as the only truth and the complete truth when I think that is silly.

And I am not saying they are on equal footing, I am saying their actions are the same...insisting that they have it all figured out and you must believe it or you are the other...childish in my opnion...But human made gods as well as human made science are too small it seems to me. But neither will admit it because they are locked in combat and don't wish to show their weakness.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
147. It's a paraphrase.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 07:13 PM
Jun 2014

It's how ToE works. So the studies are about the ToE, not the short, one-line paraphrase.

Good fuckin' grief.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
179. you left out 2. purpose, plan, or intention that exists ... in a material object.
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:16 PM
Jun 2014

Consider the obvious process that developed the mammalian eye (an example that ID idiots quickly dropped from their talking points when it was pointed out just how clear the evolutionary record was.) Evolution designs through process, not through a conscious agent, and the results can be both very good (eyes) or flawed (human knees) or both.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
180. Well as I have tried to point out before
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:56 PM
Jun 2014

Purpose does not require a plan or intention.

The purpose of the eye is to see...and if it developed by the process of evolution it did so because seeing gave the creature a better chance for survival...so there need not be a plan or an intention in that...but never the less it had a purpose.

But it is funny to me that because ID people say it shows a plan and intention you must deny what is obvious and play with the words to make it come out like a winner.

LostOne4Ever

(9,262 posts)
111. Do you mean biological or personal?
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 02:51 AM
Jun 2014

You may have a personal purpose to have sex, but (unless you are assuming there is a god or something guiding it) there is no biological goal or purpose to sex. It is something that just developed. As did asexual reproduction.

As you are a theist, I am sure you believe there is a purpose. But if there is not a god, heaven, etc, then there is no purpose. Science deals in what is proven or provable. Should a god ever be discovered, then I am sure they will work him/her/it into their theories....till then they remain silent trying not to assume either way.

Does sexual reproduction have advantages and disadvantages? Yes, but that is not a purpose.

Can you have purpose in having sex personally? Sure.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
121. Biologically, sex continues a species and is the vehicle of evolution.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 11:46 AM
Jun 2014

It's liking denying the biological purpose of a lung.

LostOne4Ever

(9,262 posts)
138. Oh?
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 02:22 PM
Jun 2014

Bacteria don't have sex and they still evolve. So much for being the vehicle of evolution.

BTW: Result and purpose are not the same thing. Continuing a species is a result...not a purpose.

Your argument is teleological, and not harmonious with contemporary biology which rejects such arguments (though way too many biologist resort to teleological arguments by accident).

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
155. Are you denying the role sexual reproduction plays in evolution?
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 08:39 PM
Jun 2014

Or are you quibbling over the indefinite and definite article?

Are you also denying the (or if you prefer, a) Darwinian drive for survival?

Is that a purpose or a result?

Regarding teleology, which I suspect you misunderstand, are you asserting reproduction is random, accidental or purposeless?

LostOne4Ever

(9,262 posts)
156. I am denying that evolution has any purpose or goal.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 09:04 PM
Jun 2014

It is driven by natural selection not by any design.

I am asserting that reproduction did not come about to suite some purpose. It came about because the environment was advantageous to it.

The environment did not say, "You know, I want this species to evolve this certain way so I am going to give them the gift of sex."

The fact that there are multiple ways through which organisms reproduce is evidence of this.

LostOne4Ever

(9,262 posts)
161. It is thought that it is advantageous because it confers the organism greater
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 09:35 PM
Jun 2014

genetic diversity which allows for more traits to develop which may or may not be advantageous as the environment changes.

To what end? There is no end result involved. It is proceeding to no set end. It is not forward looking. Sometimes these traits end up dying out because they are negatively selected for. Sometimes they might be beneficial for the current environment and thrive only to cause the species to be disadvantaged to a sudden environmental change later on. An evolutionary dead end.

Either way, it is not leading to a goal, to a final form.

LostOne4Ever

(9,262 posts)
164. By what definition do you reach that conclusion?
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 09:51 PM
Jun 2014
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/end?q=end

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/advantage

I guess by "An advantage is an end" you mean that an advantage is a goal. But no where in the definition of advantage is the word goal. One's goal can be to get an advantage...but an advantage is not necessarily a goal. Similarly an advantage can be a means to an end....but "can be" does not mean has "to be."

Or maybe you are unconsciously shifting the definitions in some fashion to make this conclusion? I am not seeing the connection if that is the case.
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
165. End is also a synonym for goal.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 10:05 PM
Jun 2014

An advantage advances achieving that goal.

Semantics aside, evolution, advanced by sexual reproduction posits certain things as good, those things being adaptation and survival of a species. Those goods are goals, ends, purposes of evolution.

Else, it's analgous to walking through doors assfirst. Water does not flow backwards.

LostOne4Ever

(9,262 posts)
166. Water does not flow uphill
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 10:18 PM
Jun 2014

HOWEVER, If a sudden earthquake raises the lower land and makes it higher...water indeed flows backwards. You can test this by putting water in a cookie pan and alternately lifting one side then the other to see it going forward and backward!

An advantage CAN advance achieving a goal. It does not necessarily do so. They can be wasted, or not used too. Advantages are not goals in and of themselves.

I disagree that evolution posits anything as good. Evolution lives in a world of moral nihilism. Sickle cell anemia is a deadly disease that kills thousands. Its hybrid genotype, however, makes an individual less affected by malaria. Is the sickle cell gene good? bad? Or both?

A species adapts to a warm climate, then a comet his the earth and breaks the land apart sending your land to an extremely northern latitude. Those adaptation have now become a negative. A species evolves an new trait that allows them to survive in a new area and out-compete the native fauna. Their survival is a negative to the other species.

You say its analogous to walking through doors assfirst, well that is exactly what a lot of extinct species did...and now they are gone.

Simply put:

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
167. Yet it always seeks the means of survival.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 10:38 PM
Jun 2014

Whether achieved or not, it is the goal. A goal that entire biological systems seek. That is their purpose.

Like a petal seeking the sun.



It's not done randomly or accidentally.

BTW, no one introduced morality into purposefulness.

LostOne4Ever

(9,262 posts)
168. Except when it evolves a species into a dead end...
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 11:26 PM
Jun 2014

Or a person commits suicide, or sacrifices oneself for another, or any other number of counter examples.

In the end, everything you said is purely your teleological belief and not the position of science.

As far as science is concerned it is driven entirely by natural selection and has no goal or purpose. When it discovers a designer or proof of a goal/design/end state, then it will add that in....but I doubt that will happen.

I do not believe (hold the claim to be true) that there is a goal. I highly suspect that we are here solely because of happenstance and coincidence. Similarly, I am fairly confident that there is no goal or reason to life.

If we want meaning, we have to create our own.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
170. Nihilism itself is a dead end.
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 08:02 AM
Jun 2014

The fact that there is something rather than nothing demonstrates that.

Inherent is biology is a goal, survival, and everything concerning it is toward that end. Individual death and species extinction do nothing to contradict that.

You are free of course to embrace nihilism as your philosophy. Even though it does not allow for this, "If we want meaning, we have to create our own." There would be no point.

LostOne4Ever

(9,262 posts)
181. Again that is your belief
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 05:51 PM
Jun 2014

and nothing more.

I already gave you a couple of counterexamples where your "goal" fails. I can easily find more. Lions killing their cubs, when ants and humans go to war, spiders allowing themselves to get eaten, and so on.

Survival means surviving. By definition, all the things I listed do, in fact, contradict that. Again, evolution is not forward looking, it does not plan ahead, it does not allow traits to develop for specific purposes.

Turtle shells did not develop because the turtle wanted to be more protected from predators, but because of random genetic mutations. These mutations just happened to help protect the animal and that gave them an advantage in survival and fitness over their unshelled cousins. No goal was involved. It was not part of any pre-planned design. That is just the way things turned out.

Existential nihilism, simply means there is no inherent meaning in life. That we just exist. Choosing our own meaning is in fact perfectly allowable.

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Existential nihilism[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Existential nihilism is the philosophical theory that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. With respect to the universe, existential nihilism posits that a single human or even the entire human species is insignificant, without purpose and unlikely to change in the totality of existence. According to the theory, each individual is an isolated being born into the universe, barred from knowing "why", yet compelled to invent meaning.[1] The inherent meaninglessness of life is largely explored in the philosophical school of existentialism, where one can potentially create his or her own subjective "meaning" or "purpose". Of all types of nihilism, existential nihilism gets the most literary and philosophical attention.[2]

The fact that there is something instead of nothing does not demonstrate that it is a dead end. Again, you are stating opinion as fact.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
115. Um, no.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 10:41 AM
Jun 2014

"But it seems to me you want it to be a bad thing because there are bad people who use it to justify their deeds."

They 'use it' because it specifies it. The Abrahamic tradition's source documentation is rife with misogyny, homophobia, genocide, etc. Don't pretend they are inventing some perverse translation/mutation of the documents, they speak for themselves.

"And again you confuse the rewards of sex with the purpose of it"

Purpose implies a designer. The universe exhibits all the hallmarks of design, without purpose. All you need to obtain design is something that is copied with variation, and copies are selected against by any number of pressures, the end result is design. Purposeless, unguided, design.

Sex fills any number of social roles quite apart from basic reproduction. It is not for you to declare what the 'purpose' of sex is. We can observe that it is used for many purposes across many species. You seem ignorant of the entire field of Evolutionary psychology research.

"And pair bonding is also biological because of biological differences in male and female...that too is obvious."

Explain, then, pair-bonds and identical emotional responses in same-sex partnerships; such as jealousy.

"But today it is no longer important because we are no longer hunter gathers but units of consumption in a system never before experienced on this earth"

Someone should tell the Gibbons that they too are no longer hunter gatherers, because they exhibit fluid sexual identity as well. If your reason holds, it must also be true of them. Also dolphins. (And many more)

"and we have come to believe that it is normal and seemingly denying the science of biology."

You have an enormous biology blind spot, around at the very least, evolutionary psychology. And there are relevant fields outside Biology on this subject as well.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
120. Well I doubt that I will ever be able to explain to you
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 11:42 AM
Jun 2014

The difference between the biological passing of sperm from male to female and the reward that comes from it....one is a biological necessity for procreation and the other one is a function of the mind and nervous system for the purpose of making it happen...

Pair bonding is a function of the mind and needs no explaintion...no more than some people enjoying country and western music and others not...but that does not suppose that it has no purpose, because the mind evolves too, and our programing evolved with it...and variations is the basis for the mechanics of evolution.

But sense this comes from "the other side" you must dismiss it as ignorance....because NTS believes otherwise.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
123. There you go mis-using 'purpose' again. Explain cats.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 11:47 AM
Jun 2014

Copulation between felines is intensely painful. The male cat penis is BARBED. I would venture to guess you have, at some point in your life, heard the caterwauling of cats mating. It sounds like someone is going to DIE. Yet they reproduce. Pleasure is not the only factor involved here.

You've gotten it right that our minds and social constructs evolve. They do. But not with 'purpose' and not with arbitrary choice. I've pointed you to the relevant field. I'm not going to spoon feed entire library shelves to you.

It is also clear you don't know what 'no true Scotsman' means.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
126. Why should we talk about cats?
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:00 PM
Jun 2014

How is that reverent in any way to human development and evolution?.
The fact about cats makes no diference...pleasure is the reward for human sex...in other animals it can be diferent...so what?

But good, I don't like being spoon fed...I can read for myself...and BTW I may have read them before...but I am weird, just because I read something in a book does not mean I accept it without question...that would be acting like the fundies do with the bible.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
130. Cats, like all placental mammals, appear to share a common ancestor.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:16 PM
Jun 2014

So not only are our reproductive systems directly related, but you also stated an absolute:

"one is a biological necessity for procreation and the other one is a function of the mind and nervous system for the purpose of making it happen..."

People who do not reproduce, who are even identical sexual gender, can satisfy the 'function of mind/nervous system' impetus behind sex.

Other species reproduce regardless.


And of course, I was referring to a body of peer reviewed science, but you probably could have guessed that without the nonsense about fundies and bibles. Falsifiable studies are intrinsically different from 'the bible'.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
131. So let me understand your point.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:26 PM
Jun 2014

Cats don't enjoy sex and because we have common ancestors it means enjoyment of sex has nothing to do with the sex itself?...it is just an accident that we do and they don't?...and accident that had no purpose at all?
Is that what those studies showed?

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
133. No.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 01:08 PM
Jun 2014

You stated an absolute that is blind to the development of human social and sexual mores. It is not only untrue of humans (regardless of your hand-wave about no longer being hunter gatherers) but the pleasure aspect is untrue in a related species, for which sex is painful. I stepped back from Gibbons, a close relative that exhibit fluid sexual mores, to cats, because you raised pleasure as a motivator. In fact, sex need not be pleasurable even in humans, and societies around the world have developed genital mutilation efforts for both genders to quell the pleasurable nature of it. Yet they reproduce.


You ascribe 'purpose' to purposeless design. It's going to keep getting you in trouble.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
148. And yet it is pleasure that motivates in humans.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 07:21 PM
Jun 2014

And I think it is naive to think it has no purpose in our evolution...that it just happened by accident and it just as easily could have been painful or asexual.

And you use genital mutilation as proof of what now?...that man the evolving animal would have reproduced even without pleasure?...That is quite a stretch for the evedence...as big a stretch as the cat and bonobo comparison.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
173. Call it a stretch all you want.
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:00 AM
Jun 2014

There are clearly biological imperatives quite apart from pleasure, for reproduction. We possess them as well.

It has no purpose, but it is the result of a process. That's because sex, in humans, serves multiple survival mechanisms beyond simple reproduction. That's why I reject your claim of a 'purpose'. And it's not just an incidental use, like, a crescent wrench's purpose is turning bolts, but you could also use it to thump Col. Mustard in the library. Our additional social uses for sex (evidence of which stretches back tens of thousands of years) are a lot less tangential than a blunt force weapon.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
174. Well sure, you can use a hammer as a doorstop
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 11:38 AM
Jun 2014

Or a screwdriver as am ice pick...but no one denies that the original purpose was to drive screws and nails...even as nail guns and electric screw drivers seem to make them obsolete.

So yes I think it is a stretch to deny the original purpose of sex.
But it seems necessary to you I suppose to do so because you are locked in to denying everything that comes close to creationism...and the purpose of sex in the human animal comes too close in your thinking to that.
Just as the creationist must deny anything that shows the earth is more than 6000 years old.
You are locked into a battle with them and the first causality of war is the truth.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
175. I can't have kids.
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 11:41 AM
Jun 2014

I fully know that, and yet I still enjoy many forms of sex that bring me closer/bond to my partner, including acts that would have no hope of resulting in pregnancy even for a fertile couple.

be a pretty dysfunctional relationship, devoid of intimacy unrelated to reproduction.

hueymahl

(2,403 posts)
79. You are confusing morality with religion
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 06:25 PM
Jun 2014

What you discuss is immoral. Religion can be a source of morality for some, but they are wholly different.

Htom Sirveaux

(1,242 posts)
9. Not necessarily.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 12:45 PM
Jun 2014

If God's message was "those who have the gold should make the rules", there would be no need for special revelation to communicate that. The material "blessings" of the rich and powerful are already self-evident.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
10. that would just be a revealed truth that happened to correspond to observed reality
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 12:59 PM
Jun 2014

and that "revelation" is part of traditional Calvinist theology. Not all the "messages" are at odds with reality, nor are they all "bad", the problem is that none of them require any evidence. It doesn't matter if the gods tell us stuff that is obvious bullshit, or clearly true. They are gods, we just need to shut up and behave.

But I was objecting to parsing out "perverted" beliefs. That is an NTS argument.

Htom Sirveaux

(1,242 posts)
12. I agree that bad beliefs are not less religious for being bad.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 01:17 PM
Jun 2014

I reject the NTS. I also reject the authoritarian "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" line of thinking. Mistaking our beliefs about God for inerrant messages from God is to declare ourselves inerrant, and thus to declare ourselves the only God, and that's idolatrous.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
19. I think your argument ends up effectivelty denying the existence of an external omnipotent deity.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:09 PM
Jun 2014

And instead you have placed the individual as the ultimate arbiter of what is true. And then it wanders off into a circularity that seems mostly meaningless. I agree with the first part. There are no messages from any gods, errant or inerrant, just humans either deluded into believing they exist, or pretending they exist for their own purposes. The gods are silent. Our beliefs about the gods are the only reality that religion can lay claim to, those beliefs exist.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
23. If there are only "errant" messages from god
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:45 PM
Jun 2014

or no messages at all, either one, then it is up to each individual to decide which beliefs are "true" and which "false". At that point, what role at all is a deity playing in this game? Seems to me one can remove gods entirely from the process and we are at the same place: individuals deciding with all of our human frailty which beliefs are true and which aren't.

Htom Sirveaux

(1,242 posts)
25. Are you saying that the point of gods is to declare particular ideas certain and indisputable?
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:00 PM
Jun 2014

And if they don't do that, then they are irrelevant and don't exist?

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
70. pretty much sums up traditional religious belief systems.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 05:36 PM
Jun 2014

human with special access to alleged deities issue decrees that are indisputable as they are of allegedly divine origin. If instead there are no inerrant messages delivered from alleged deities, we humans have to pick through whatever it is that remains: errant messages or nothing, (and there appears to be little functional difference between those two remaining choices) and form our own opinions about how to live, what the meaning if anything of life is, etc. If deities exist and aren't providing us with "divine wisdom" or anything else for that matter, who cares if they exist or not? If they are a black box with no observable information output, they aren't a factor in reality.

goldent

(1,582 posts)
112. "You can't just carve out all the belief systems you don't wish to defend..."
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 08:47 AM
Jun 2014

I'd say you absolutely can do that, and we do that all the time when it comes to ethics, politics, even science.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
113. Science, not so much.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 09:11 AM
Jun 2014

NTS arguments are indeed quite common. Rejecting the data points that refute your position is generally frowned on in the scientific community.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
55. Completely agree.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:11 PM
Jun 2014

I just meant I would go with that modified version.

I think if "religion" became to people what their favorite color, or favorite sports team is - something they may enjoy and appreciate but also realize holds NO MEANING apart from that, it would be better for everyone.

Response to hrmjustin (Reply #8)

Dorian Gray

(13,463 posts)
14. That's the thing that bugs me too
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 01:26 PM
Jun 2014

Maher is Maher. He says outrageous things often. Recreational drugs don't have to be bad, I suppose. And I know his opinion on religion. But saying that the President is lying about his faith, even as a joke, is obnoxious.

But, yeah, this is the extent of my outrage. Nothing he says is surprising.

Dorian Gray

(13,463 posts)
85. It's possible anybody would do it
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 07:51 PM
Jun 2014

But when we are told that we shouldn't disavow bad Christians by saying they don't follow the faith, it's pretty rude for people to claim that someone on our side is too smart to be Christian. He says he's Christian. Shouldn't we take him at his word?

If not... why not? Because if we can start arguing that he isn't Christian, then we can start arguing that other people we don't like aren't for various reasons.

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
26. It is disgusting and he should apologize for it.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:05 PM
Jun 2014

I agree with him on many things but the guy is still a jerk. He makes many good points on religion at times but his hatred makes him difficult to listen too.

Dorian Gray

(13,463 posts)
86. Honestly
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 07:52 PM
Jun 2014

I have more a problem with his friendship with Anne Coulter. But.... Maher is Maher. He's a jerk.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
176. He doesn't attend services. Neither did Bush. But, neither did I and I
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 11:45 AM
Jun 2014

believed. Then again, if I had children the age of the Obama kids, and I did believe, I probably might take them to church, after doing a lot of research.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
16. So Maher says that, and he's a jerk.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 01:32 PM
Jun 2014

But the pope says homosexual marriage is from Satan - what does that make him?

The first guy is just saying his opinion. The second one runs the largest Christian church in the world, and his opinions influence a billion people (and how they treat others).

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
30. Bill Maher is an entertainer. He makes his money off of saying really outrageous things.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:17 PM
Jun 2014

Maybe he's not even a real atheist. Maybe he is just faking it in order to get ratings, make movies and get invited onto The Daily Show.

I would not be at all surprised.


cbayer

(146,218 posts)
32. What in the world would lead you to say that?
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:20 PM
Jun 2014

Underlying this and Maher's assumption seems to be the following: He's just too smart to really be a believer.

The arrogance and hubris of that thinking is rather appalling.

edhopper

(33,075 posts)
35. Just my sense of the man
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:32 PM
Jun 2014

Very few politicians relate their actually religious beliefs.
Nature of the beast (politics that is.)

Is it really that insulting to think a man might be something of an agnostic.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
39. No, you can think he is whatever you think he is.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:39 PM
Jun 2014

Is it really that insulting to think the man might actually be a believer?



And where do you get the idea that "very few politicians relate their actual religious beliefs"? Is that just your "sense" as well, or do you have trouble acknowledging that some people you really admire might be different than you when it comes to religion? Or something else entirely?

edhopper

(33,075 posts)
41. Plenty of politicians are believers
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:46 PM
Jun 2014

many that I admire.
Just saying my sense of Obama.

And religion is one area where I do not think politicians openly discuss their real beliefs.
i don't think half the Repugs are as fundamentalist as they portray themselves.

I don't think politicians are candid about much, and religion hardly ever.

With few exceptions, admitting they doubt the existence of God would be political suicide.

I must say, I resent the way you are inferring the reasons for my opinions.
It is quite insulting.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
43. I think many politicians, like most people, keep their
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:51 PM
Jun 2014

beliefs or lack of beliefs to themselves. Those that wear them like a badge of some sort do raise my level of skepticism.

But when someone like Obama states what he is and what he believes, I see absolutely no reason to doubt him.

Of course atheism and agnosticism are political liabilities, but that doesn't mean that everyone who claims faith should be doubted.

I also feel quit insulted by your inferences. So let's call it equal and move on.

edhopper

(33,075 posts)
47. And there you generalize
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:55 PM
Jun 2014

my opinion again. Where did i say it was about everyone who claims faith, or everyone I admire.
But somehow you want to make this more than my feeling about Obama.
I am still insulted. You are making groundless assumptions about my posts.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
52. You are correct. I did generalize and retract that.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:59 PM
Jun 2014

I think that Obama is a man of his word and I believe he is who he says he is.

I think I am letting Maher's over the top BS about Obama attach itself to you, and that's not fair.

Please consider accepting my apology.

edhopper

(33,075 posts)
59. Accepted
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:31 PM
Jun 2014

I am just stating an opinion, I have no problem with people who think he is more devout.
It is just idle speculation and doesn't effect my opinion of his Presidency.
If he is more religious than I think, it doesn't change the way i see his policies, which stand or fall on their own.

This is much different than how I feel about many R politicians, who allow fundamentalist religion ( or the pressure from such) to warp their work.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
62. I agree with what you are saying here.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:40 PM
Jun 2014

I am being somewhat hypocritical because I think that many fundamentalist politicians are shysters and crooks. I think they fabricate their religious position and manipulate and use those who are truly religious in order to gain power.

For example, I think Paul Ryan is a true Randian and as such, is probably also a true atheist.

So, I also do not take some people at their word and think they are lying about their religion.

Maher really pushes my buttons because he position is basically that only stupid people are religious and anyone who is actually smart is probably just lying if they say they are religious. That's so arrogant and so offensive.

But he also has some attitudes towards women that reveal his underlying bigotry.

I soothe myself by noting that he is most likely a very fragile narcissist and all of this is just a shell to cover up his own deep seats insecurities about his own spirituality and sense of masculinity, lol.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
66. I iike parts of it.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 05:02 PM
Jun 2014

His panels tend to be really, really diverse, which I enjoy. And he's got some good guests.

But the parts when it's just him tend to be the least enjoyable for me.

At any rate, I only get to see it a few times a years, but catch some clips on the web from time to time.

edhopper

(33,075 posts)
68. He's a comedian, and if he makes me laugh
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 05:04 PM
Jun 2014

he's done his job. I do like his "New Rules" at the end.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
69. I am a huge fan of comedy and stand up in particular.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 05:21 PM
Jun 2014

I think the men and women who are good at it are truly remarkable. I can't even imaging doing it.

I am taking advantage of location right now and getting my fill of comedy from my daughter's apple tv box.

Anything you recommend?

okasha

(11,573 posts)
58. What's the difference
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:30 PM
Jun 2014

between thinking Obama's a secret Muslim and thinking he's a secret agnostic/atheist?

edhopper

(33,075 posts)
60. I didn't say atheist
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:34 PM
Jun 2014

agnostic, not the same thing.
Do you think him not being sure about the existence of God is the same as being a secret Muslim, bent on destroying the country.
That is some hatred of the nonbeliever you have.

okasha

(11,573 posts)
63. I used "agnostic/atheist"
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:45 PM
Jun 2014

because there is a large and vociferous group in this forum who deny that there is any distinction between the terms. Just covering the bases.

I drew the parallel beteeen your comments and those made by the "secret Muslim" pontificators because both claims appear to be based equally in wishful thinking rather than fact, not because I think there's any moral equivalrncy.

edhopper

(33,075 posts)
67. I don't "hope" Obama is agnostic
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 05:03 PM
Jun 2014

I just have the sense he leans that way. What would be wrong with that? And are you questioning my belief he doubts God?
I don't think Hillary is as devout as she has recently made out, don't know about Bill (he tended to pander a bit)
Carter on the other hand is what he presents IMHO.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
73. And who would that be?
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 05:52 PM
Jun 2014

"there is a large and vociferous group in this forum who deny that there is any distinction between the terms"

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
80. At least you don't understand the argument
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 06:31 PM
Jun 2014

you are making fun of.

If we go by what the two words actually mean, they are describing two different things.

okasha

(11,573 posts)
81. Eh? I'm not making fun
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 06:46 PM
Jun 2014

of anyone's "argument."

Just pointing out that I'm aware that a controversy exists over the terms and, as I said to edhopper, just covering the bases. No way am I going to take sides--not my fight.

okasha

(11,573 posts)
101. Falling back on
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 09:55 PM
Jun 2014

the "x hates atheists" blather is not an explanation of how or why the two things differ. All you have come up with to explain your assertion is that you claim "another way of knowing."

edhopper

(33,075 posts)
102. That you see no difference
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 10:14 PM
Jun 2014

In my speculation that Obama may doubt God exists and those who call him a secret Muslim terrorists says it all, doesn't it.
You also can't seem to understand the difference between him not being open about that for political reasons and the motives the idiots who proclaim him a Muslim.
Are you being willfully ignorant or just hate the idea he might not be a believer so much you try to throw this garbage.
I've answered and I'm done. It's just pathetic and not worth a further reply.

okasha

(11,573 posts)
103. But I didn't say I saw no difference
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 10:25 PM
Jun 2014

in the two positions. In fact, I said quite explicitly in post #63 that I don't consider the two claims morally equivalent. Don't accuse me of offences that exist solely in your imagination, please.

edhopper

(33,075 posts)
104. That you think the motivations of both are the same
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 10:40 PM
Jun 2014

Is the most insulting of all.
My motivations is just speculation based on what I see, I don't give two shits if he is or isn't either way.
But your hatred of atheists is so apparent that you must project some ulterior motive to my thinking out loud.
It is just pathetic.

okasha

(11,573 posts)
109. Didn't say that, either.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:11 PM
Jun 2014

I said both struck me as wishful thinking. Your anger is disproportionate and misplaced.

I do not "hate atheists. " No reason to. That is simply the excuse you're giving yourself for your unwillingness to respond reasonably or other than by personal attack.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
40. Well, underlying the assumption you and many other believers have made about Hitler seems to be:
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:43 PM
Jun 2014

He's just too evil to be a Christian.

Back at ya.

Brettongarcia

(2,262 posts)
132. Some biographers insist that Hitler was a Catholic; altar boy as a matter of fact
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:51 PM
Jun 2014

In Bavaria, the mostly-Catholic region where Hitler started, it was common for the Church to teach that Jews and their religion were antagonistic and inferior to Christ and Christianity. And that "the Jews killed Jesus" in fact. (In "replacement theology," etc.).

When the Nazis marched to war in WW I and II, they say, many of them wore belt buckles that said "Gott Mit Uns"; "God With Us."

Mussolini and the pope lived not far from each other in WW II; the Pope did not really try to stop him. Not really.

edhopper

(33,075 posts)
36. Maybe
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:33 PM
Jun 2014

or maybe he questions the existence of God.
I don't think politicians opening reveal their true religious beliefs.

Response to edhopper (Reply #36)

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
38. many of us question the existence of God. This is nothing new for believers.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:38 PM
Jun 2014

But there is no reason to believe he is anything but what he says he is.

edhopper

(33,075 posts)
48. His background, schooling,
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:57 PM
Jun 2014

some of the things he has said. (sorry, none comes to mind)

I am not claiming he is agnostic, just giving you what my intuition tells me.

Your opinion is equally valid.

Act_of_Reparation

(9,104 posts)
44. I agree, more or less
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:52 PM
Jun 2014

I doubt Obama's beliefs are particularly veracious, but I see no reason not to take him on his word when he says he's a Christian.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
71. nice broadbrush smear there cbayer.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 05:41 PM
Jun 2014

good thing the atheists generally aren't alert-happy isn't it? You can just smear away knowing that there are no consequences, and then get all huffy if anyone dares say anything negative about *some* religious beliefs.

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
75. It's mostly believers who claim to not be agnostic
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 06:06 PM
Jun 2014

so, yes, we agree on this issue (and it's not a few, judging by facebook feeds)

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
107. I don't know if that's accurate or not, but they are obnoxious whether they be
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 10:56 PM
Jun 2014

believers or not.

I've met both, but most reasonable, rational people will pretty easily acknowledge that they just don't know for sure.

Anyway, it's not something worth keeping score over. I think we can agree that anyone that claims to "know" surely does not.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
157. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 09:07 PM
Jun 2014

It's not worth keeping score because no one really wins or loses.

Want some straw?

eomer

(3,845 posts)
64. Not true. A person whose view is that they know is not an agnostic.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:54 PM
Jun 2014

I take it you meant that technically no one really knows and that that makes everyone an agnostic. But technically that's not the definition of agnostic. It's not about what a person really knows but rather about whether they think they know.

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
76. Yea, I know that's how it is often applied
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 06:12 PM
Jun 2014

when it comes to the agnostic label believers get a pass to believe in what they want to, and they even get shielded from questions about it by cries of bigotry and wot-not, while atheists constantly get the "Well you don't know for sure."

Believers can believe what they want, atheists are never allowed to be anything more than agnostic without serious flack about being fundamentalist or militant, or hating believers.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
108. Do you find that to be true here, because I have never seen that.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:02 PM
Jun 2014

I think pretty much everyone who posts here identifies themselves as being agnostic and I've never seen that be an issue.

What is an issue is the rare times when someone claims that they "know" that there is or is not a god.

I think you are really distorting what goes on here. By "claiming to be anything more than agnostic", I assume you mean claiming to have knowledge of whether there is a god or not.

It really has nothing to do with being a fundamentalist or militant or hating believers. That is generally just applied to anti-theists.

And that has no connection to agnosticism, imo.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
163. So, you don't find it to be true here then?
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 09:44 PM
Jun 2014

You are talking more generally about things that happen in other places?

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
142. It is about what they claim to believe or disbelieve.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 03:57 PM
Jun 2014

Even if they have doubt or lack certainty. I don't believe in the existence of gods, even though I acknowledge that I cannot prove they do not exist, even though I acknowledge that there is some highly improbable chance that my disbelief I wrong. I have the same position on the existence of faeries, although I think such beings are far more probable than deities in charge of the universe.

eomer

(3,845 posts)
145. It's about what they really believe.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 06:39 PM
Jun 2014

One is not an atheist by merely claiming to not believe in god(s) - you have to really not believe.

One is not an agnostic by merely claiming to believe you don't know - you have to really believe you don't know.

If you have some degree of doubt then you're some bit of an agnostic.

Not too long ago I would have described myself the same as you do. After thinking further my belief is that the concept of god doesn't make enough sense to pose a rational question. For a nonsensical question I don't have an answer, none is called for. I don't know what that makes me.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
141. not really.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 03:51 PM
Jun 2014

Atheists disbelieve there is a god, even if they agree that they cannot prove that there is no god, and even if they acknowledge that there is some very small probability that they are wrong.

Theists believe there is a god, even if they cannot prove that, and even if they acknowledge that they might be wrong.

Agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve, they claim neither position with respect to the existence of gods. Very few people are actually agnostics, even if they claim to be so.

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
154. There is some truth to that
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 08:11 PM
Jun 2014

Although I'd say that atheists reject the proposition of a god, rather than disbelieve. better phrasing so we can uproot the concept that belief is the default.

My comment was more directed at colloquial usage where, as stated above, belief is the default and is not questioned, and as you move away from belief theists don't let you get to atheist without the constant "Well you can't know for sure so you're really an agnostic" while not applying it to themselves. If theists could work within the actual definitions of words then there would be no problem, but as seen with biblical interpretation, they can't even agree what their own holy books say without getting into wars about it.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
172. Fair enough, but we have some theists here who claim to be agnostics
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 08:55 AM
Jun 2014

by misusing the word. It is not 'lack of certainty'. So I will continue to object to any implication that mere uncertainty qualifies as agnosticism. I wholeheartedly agree with "reject the proposition of god(s)" as a better phrasing of the atheist position.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
77. Better living through chemistry?
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 06:14 PM
Jun 2014

I used to have a button like that, back when I was about 20 or so.

Over time, I've come to realize that you live best the fewer drugs you can put into your system, although doing so requires careful attention to diet and exercise to avoid needing to try and use chemical stopgap measures rather than healthy living. I wish I'd learned that lesson about 20 years earlier. But knowing Maher, he probably simply meant 'recreational drugs', in which case, I'd say 'all things in moderation', and 'be knowledgeable about things you put into your body'. The *real* consequences, not the booga booga scare you into not doing drugs nonsense that's put out by the prohibition types.

LostOne4Ever

(9,262 posts)
83. If Obama was an atheist
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 07:20 PM
Jun 2014

I really doubt his administration would have filed a brief in favor of townhall prayer...

LostOne4Ever

(9,262 posts)
93. In general
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 08:33 PM
Jun 2014

we liberal atheists tend to be pretty big on the whole separation of Church and state thing.

Though, I generally take people's own word on their own belief unless given actual physical evidence to the contrary.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
94. Do you not think he could be an atheist hiding his atheism? Hence the brief.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 08:38 PM
Jun 2014

There are certainly plenty here who claim to keep it quiet.

I don't think he's an atheist but filing that brief hardly precludes it.

LostOne4Ever

(9,262 posts)
95. If his goal was to hide his atheism
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 08:48 PM
Jun 2014

He could have done so in a way that was not directly harmful to the Separation of C&S.

For instance, he could of pandered to all the religious people by saying something along the lines of "The Bible is my Biggest Influence" or something like that.



I guess I could see him doing that if he was a complete and utter moron....but PBO does not strike me as the stupid type. I think hes a very intelligent person.

What about you?

LostOne4Ever

(9,262 posts)
97. Did I say that?
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 09:05 PM
Jun 2014

Last edited Wed Jun 25, 2014, 02:53 AM - Edit history (1)

Nope, I did not.

I did make an implication, but it was not to say that she was an atheist....

merrily

(45,251 posts)
177. Did the needle move on the Presidential level?
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 11:48 AM
Jun 2014

Hillary just announced that the book that had the most influence on her life is the Bible. She also seems fine with guns. I think it was the same show that Maher was on where Jon Stewart said she was "clinging to guns and religion," much as Obama mentioned while fundraising some years ago.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Maher to Stewart: ‘Drugs ...