Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Skyrunner]

As a humanist atheistic buddhist, I see no reason for people to hate one another. Why bother?

What's wrong with controlled hate? I hate child rapists, don't you?

Now, bear in mind I have no logic training at all, but I think this isn't a correct argument. Strawman, maybe?
*pops out of thread again*

[Siquo]

D. Evidence-based morality is still something you made up, and even though it might work for you personally, I still think you're bending the concept of "evidence" as you defined it.

I dont understand why 'something someone made up' is a detriment.

I'm not saying that is good, bad, or anything about atheists or theists. I'm just saying that one cannot have morality or values based only on the type of evidence you defined, that you need to just go out on a limb, take a leap of faith, and say "Hey, happiness is a good thing". That is, in itself, a belief not staved by evidence, and is therefore faith, as per the earlier definition.

No, no faith needed.

'Something someone made up' is not a detriment, that is my whole point. Earlier someone said "faith is a belief without evidence", therefore, the belief that "happiness is a good thing" must be a faith. "Something someone made up" also applies to a God.

Contrary to what many atheists seem to want, you Can Not Have A Meaningful Life Without A Form Of Faith (capitalised because that makes it more true, of course), since, by throwing semantics and logic around, any Meaning is a Faith. Faith being defined as "A belief without evidence" and evidence as per Greks earlier definition. Belief defined as per Wikipedia's definition "Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true", and "Meaning" (this is a tricky one), as that what you find in life is important, that which is the driving force behind acting at all. Acting upon the desire not to have pain is already a meaning, in this case. "Meaningful life" defined as any state other than catatonia.

[MonkeyHead]

When an atheist uses the word faith, they refer to the belief in a god, not that beleiving such postulations as "suffering is universally bad".

[Frumple]

Semantic slip again, but... not all atheists, no. M'one (agnostic atheist, more accurately, or 'weak' atheist. Mostly, anyway.), and that's not what I refer to when I say faith. Faith is a larger phenomena than that embodied by religious faith. I wouldn't call it appropriate to hijack the the concept just to reinforce my atheist preferences. Disingenuous, is what I'd call it, I think. The areligious don't need to resort to that to defend their position, we've got better methods and arguments. E: Bit later, but to be a bit more evenhanded, it's not something just the areligious does, of course. Folks should see the twisted tangles chritian theology has made of the word good at points during its history, heh, just as an example.

Faith is simply belief that either has not been or can not be justified -- stuff that does not have (in some cases, yet) an empirical truth value, generally (there's wiggle room in there for non empirical stuff, I'd think.). The unjustifiable sort is definitely more prevalent in religious circles, but it's neither universal among them (perhaps universal among the theist ones, but that's not the whole of religion) or exclusive to them.

[Siquo]

When an atheist uses the word faith, they refer to the belief in a god, not that beleiving such postulations as "suffering is universally bad".

Making them different from "the others". But it's the same thing.

[MonkeyHead]

One can have faith without being religious. Atheists can have faith in thier own ideals, be they relating to the (non)existance of a god or any other philosophical premise.

[G-Flex]

When an atheist uses the word faith, they refer to the belief in a god, not that beleiving such postulations as "suffering is universally bad".

"Atheist" is one of the most broad and vague terms you can make when classifying people based on what they believe in. Making blanket statements like this about such a diverse group isn't really a good idea.

[MonkeyHead]

Yea, I was starting from the standpoint that the only real unifying factor amongst Atheists is the non existance of god(s) and working up, which I accept is flawed.

[Reudh]

As a humanist atheistic buddhist, I see no reason for normal people to hate one another. Why bother?

What's wrong with controlled hate? I hate child rapists, don't you?

Now, bear in mind I have no logic training at all, but I think this isn't a correct argument. Strawman, maybe?
*pops out of thread again*

FTFMyself

[Grek]

Number one: When you start arguing semantics, that's a good sign that you've stopped disagreeing about the world around you are and just hung up on the wording. Number two:

Faith being defined as "A belief without evidence" and evidence as per Greks earlier definition. Belief defined as per Wikipedia's definition "Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true",

The key point here is the definition of the word "true". Much like the proposition, "X is on the left.", the proposition, "X is a good thing." often does not have a set truth value when you don't also have a set perspective. On who's left? My left? Your left? My good? Your good? Who knows!

When people are talking about objective matters, things that actually do have a set truth value, they don't say things like, "I have faith that the sky is blue." or "I beleive the sky is blue." or "The sky being blue is neccessary for my morality." They just say "The sky is blue." and take you to go see it if you disagree with them. This is because they're talking about the sky, rather than using the sky to talk, in a roundabout fashion, about themselves.

[Frumple]

*coughs* Well, there's some wiggle room with sensory data. When I say the sky is blue, I'm actually lying to you -- I've had fairly acute visual snow my whole life, and I don't see the sky as blue, but rather a sort of writhing kalidescopic mess threaded through a partially blue field.

The very concept of "pure" color is completely at odds with my empirical experience and while I speak of them as a matter of convenience and can sort of recognize them in an abstract sense (partially blue field, ferex), I'm not actually talking about the same phenomena, because I've never encountered it. When I say the sky is blue, I'm actually saying I believe the sky is the thing most of the rest of you probably call blue It's not actually a single color to me -- insofar as actual experience goes, singular color might as well be a platonic ideal without physical expression.

Now, when you say something like "the desk is hard," then there's definite agreement. That's a bit harder to experience differently, and hardness is a bit less abstract and subjective than color.

[MonkeyHead]

This is where quantifiable and measureable values come in though isnt it - colour being how the brain functions in regards to wavelength/frequency. The reaction of the sensory apparatus may not be constat from individual to individual, but the wavelength of monochromatic light can be shown to be constant. Things that can be measured by defenition must exist in some fashion.

[Frumple]

Aye, there's that. Thing is, while I can say that I experience the same wavelength interaction, I can't say I see the same color -- I can't, accurately, say the sky is blue, as I see at least four other colors in that mess. I can say it's that thing that people call blue, but not much more than that. While the input's the same, the output is apparently considerably different. In this case, the definition we use for blue -- which, I'd say, involves more than just the wavelength, particularly re: singular nature -- isn't one that fits my experience, and my own description of it has been noted repeatedly to be rather radically different from the normal. I'm basically taking it on faith that what I'm seeing is what everyone else is talking about when they describe the color blue, because when they take me outside and point up the experiment's reproduction fails

Guess I'm saying there's a bit more convention to part of what's being measured (particularly re: interpretation, in this case) than might be being considered.

[kaijyuu]

As a humanist atheistic buddhist, I see no reason for people to hate one another. Why bother?

What's wrong with controlled hate? I hate child rapists, don't you?

No. They're human beings, just as much as the ones they abused.

I may hate rape, though. I may hate the mindsets and predispositions that would lead to it. But the people who perpetrate it? Pity at worst.


To paraphrase Yoda, hate is the path to the Dark Side. All it leads to is vengeance, which isn't useful in any way and makes hypocrites of those who pursue it.

[fqllve]

While I think Yoda's reasoning was specious I do think you hit on something important there. Hate as an emotion is dehumanizing in a way that anger isn't. It's ok, and even necessary to be angry at people like that, but to hate, no matter how well-justified you think it is, is to flirt with danger because someone hated isn't really deserving of consideration.

However, I do find it hard to pity them. I kind of have to have some understanding of their point of view for me to feel pity and this isn't really one of the cases where I do.