Atheists and the soul

[Trooper]

Money doesn't mean much to me.

Tit for tat.

Become my servant until your death and I will serve you upon mine.

Would you sign?

 

[DaveC426913]

Money doesn't mean much to me.

Tit for tat.

Become my servant until your death and will serve you upon mine.

Would you sign?

Good point. The scenario assumes that monetary riches are a universal carrot-on-a-stick. I should substitute something that serves as a general lure. (A wish is an obvious one, but wishes tend to be too fraught with their own baggage.)

 

[DaveC426913]

I cant emagine an example of "acting selflessly"... well... unless some sort of "magic" is involved.!!!

What do you mean? Giving someone the shirt off your back is selfless.
Giving someone the last sip of your canteen in the desert is selfless.
Holding your baby's head above water while you drown is selfless.

Of course... an do you have an example of an abnormal person who woud not weigh the odds.???

Jesus is a pretty good example. If we are to take account of his life literally, he acted selflessly quite a bit.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Except you aren't silent, are you? Like at least a dozen other people, you feel it's important to explain your viewpoint.

No, I ascribe no importance to my viewpoint, certainly not on the contrived hypothetical you posted.

I do ascribe an importance to opposing superstition and propaganda, which seems to be your end game. I only entered here to express my viewpoint in opposition to your opinion that 7 people were "waffling". My statement is that your proposition is a hypothetical admitting to an absurdity contrary to purporting to be an atheist. Hence you seem to be adopting the superstitious world view. Or are you the one who is waffling?

I have no opinion of the hypothetical you raised,

Demonstrably false.

So you want to split hairs? Ok: I have no opinion about my own reaction in the scenario you imagine for me. I only have an opinion of why you project your own ideology onto me. There. Does that make you feel better? After all, this is all about you.

You've spent quite a bit of time composing a post,

Not at all. I spent a few minutes reading the posts of people I respect for their intelligence, trying to figure out what your game is, pretty certain you will never cut to the chase.

so it's certainly not true that you find this discussion nonsense or trivial. So, why did you not vote? It costs you nothing.

Read my post again. To clarify: you posed a leading question which is dishonest.

What I'm examining here, is the suspicion that a lot of people have strong convictions as long as those convictions are not put to a test.

In other words, you are superstitious after all, contrary to your denial to the contrary. :shrug: Otherwise, why play games?

The moment they are asked to put their money where their mouth is, even symbolically, you often find out that they rationalize a million reasons why they suddenly don't happen to have any money.

This is why more atheists ought to drop their imagined scientific skepticism, and state outright that God cannot possibly exist since there exists no definition of God which is not a human fabrication. Once we agree to what we all know to be true, the sham creationist proposition that many atheists allow out of a sort of a chic token to religious freedom -- if not atonement to a god of scientific skepticism -- will no longer be mollycoddled out of a sense of gentile egalitarianism. It will be treated as it deserves, as a dangerous propaganda, cruelly inflicted on vulnerable minds, and as a program used to harness political, social and economic capital. And when I say dangerous I mean dangerously effective, as are all the indelible ideologies written onto the human defense mechanism.

There are exactly three outcomes in this thread:
1. those who sign and rationalize why
2. those who do not sign and rationalize why
3. those who do not participate at all and have no need to explain

No, that's your fundamental fallacy. There is a standing objection to your entire formulation of the thread, as a propaganda ploy. It's rhetorically invalid as a leading question, which is the type of tactic a propaganda artist typically uses. Try stating something that at least adheres to some modicum of respect for the intelligence of readers.

Like it or not, you fall into category 2.

Nope. Like it or not, you've confirmed that you are guilty of the above fallacy and therefore tentatively in violation of the site rules against trolling via fallacious argument.

Category 4. Those who resist falling into the trap of admitting or denying a leading question.

Play God much? How's that working for you so far?

It's working out pretty good:

"And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus...When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory."

See you then...

Let the record reflect that Photizo just admitted that he is God.

 

[DaveC426913]

I do ascribe an importance to opposing superstition and propaganda, which seems to be your end game. I only entered here to express my viewpoint in opposition to your opinion that 7 people were "waffling". My statement is that your proposition is a hypothetical admitting to an absurdity contrary to purporting to be an atheist. Hence you seem to be adopting the superstitious world view. Or are you the one who is waffling?

I'm not sure how you get to superstition or propaganda. I've been quite up front about my motives and my reason for starting this thread, so I'll thank you not to try to cast aspersions upon my motivation.

So you want to split hairs?

On the contrary, it is you who is bifurcating bunnies. You offer your opinion on the topic, but claim it is a special type of opinion, not quite like all the other opinions. I'm simply saying an opinion offered is an opinion offered.

But OK, I'll grant that it's a valid, if fine distinction. Actually let's give it a name: a meta-opinion (i.e. an opinion about opinions).

OK, it's a valid stance. It's actually one of the reasons why I started this post, because I want input.

After all, this is all about you.

I was pretty up front about that too. But then, that's mostly raising a question for discussion is, isn't it? The quest for input.

... figure out what your game is, pretty certain you will never cut to the chase.

I have cut to the chase. We are discussing what I want to discuss. By all means, if you want to wait in the wings, do so.

you posed a leading question which is dishonest.

Framing it as a leading question does not in-and-of-itself, make it dishonest.

I made it pretty clear in laying out the scenario, exactly what you could expect. I made it clear, so that there was no intent to deceive, that I was essentially laying a trap, and asking how, as each of you approached the trap you could all see, you would react.

That is not dishonest. That is a hypothetical.

In other words, you are superstitious after all, contrary to your denial to the contrary. :shrug: Otherwise, why play games?

We are ALL playing this game*. We ALL know what's going on. I'm making very sure each and every contributor sees me dig a hole in the forest, then cover it with leaves, then ask them to approach and describe what they do.


*well, except you, who is saying 'You've dug a pit! We all saw you! You 're describing the pit and pointing at it! This is dishonest!'

C'maaaan.

Try stating something that at least adheres to some modicum of respect for the intelligence of readers.

If you don't think I'm treating you with a modicum of respect, you need not come here to say so. Not participating is the appropriate way to do that.

 

[iceaura]

Capitulation to bullying, in an argument, has its own objections - somebody refusing to say "uncle" under pressure is not rationalizing some kind of objection to the word "uncle".

Making knowingly corrupt or invalid assertions, cooperating in the establishment of false dichotomies and the like, may even be damaging to the soul - which as an atheist I believe can be damaged by cowardice and deliberate collusion with manipulative device.

Note that this nature of the soul is recognized by most theistic traditions as well - in the Christian Bible, for example, it is Satan who attempts to box the prophet in with such false choices: if you believe God protects you, you would jump off this cliff and prove it / if you don't jump, you are admitting doubt no matter how you rationalize it; that kind of thing.

The very premise of the "trap" is the seriousness of harm to one's soul - being atheistic, such harm appears to me more serious than it may appear to the theistic, who have easier access to remediation.

So you need to add a fourth, to this list

There are exactly three outcomes in this thread:
1. those who sign and rationalize why
2. those who do not sign and rationalize why
3. those who do not participate at all and have no need to explain

 

[Kittamaru]

Okay kiddos, play nicely aight?

The original intent of the thread was as a discussion of a hypothetical situation - I think some people here are reading into it a bit too much.

 

[DaveC426913]

Capitulation to bullying, in an argument, has its own objections - somebody refusing to say "uncle" under pressure is not rationalizing some kind of objection to the word "uncle".

Making knowingly corrupt or invalid assertions, cooperating in the establishment of false dichotomies and the like, may even be damaging to the soul - which as an atheist I believe can be damaged by cowardice and deliberate collusion with manipulative device.

How can harm come to something that one is certain does not exist?

Or are you using a second non-supernatural definition of "soul"? Might I suggest a different word? Say, "character"?

it is Satan who attempts to box the prophet in with such false choices: if you believe God protects you, you would jump off this cliff and prove it / if you don't jump, you are admitting doubt no matter how you rationalize it; that kind of thing.

That is a flawed argument. It is based on the false assertion that God protects everyone from anything all the time - including deliberately jumping off a cliff. This is demonstrably false, and not even the most devout Christian would claim otherwise.

Unlike my suggestion, that claim can be disproven, independently and repeatedly, at any time, by anyone with the inclination.

The very premise of the "trap" is the seriousness of harm to one's soul - being atheistic, such harm appears to me more serious than it may appear to the theistic, who have easier access to remediation.

How can harm come to something that one is certain does not exist?

So you need to add a fourth, to this list

What fourth?

 

[sculptor]

Let the record reflect that Photizo just admitted that he is God.

If GOD is in everyone and all things, are we not all then, GOD?

Ephesians 4:6

 

[iceaura]

How can harm come to something that one is certain does not exist?

What are you talking about? As is clear above, I am of the opinion that souls exist, and can be harmed. Furthermore, I take the harm seriously - with no God to bail me out, I have to.

Or are you using a second non-supernatural definition of "soul"? Might I suggest a different word? Say, "character"?

No, your suggestion is misleading - one's character is not at all equivalent to one's soul.

That is a flawed argument.

Yes. It is also flawed when you use it, as here.

It is based on the false assertion that God protects everyone from anything all the time - -

Not at all. Read the original in the Christian Bible, where the prophet Jesus of Nazareth deals with the argument at its root in a couple of places. He also, btw, describes the nature of the entity presenting such argument as legitimate.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
I cant emagine an example of "acting selflessly"... well... unless some sort of "magic" is involved.!!!

Giving someone the shirt off your back is selfless.
Giving someone the last sip of your canteen in the desert is selfless.
Holding your baby's head above water while you drown is selfless.

Woud you make any of those sacrifices unless ther was at least an equal personal payoff.???

cluelusshusbund
...do you have an example of an abnormal person who woud not weigh the odds.???

Dave
Jesus is a pretty good example. If we are to take account of his life literally, he acted selflessly quite a bit.

Give an example of Bible Jesus actin selflessly.!!!

 

[DaveC426913]

What are you talking about? As is clear above, I am of the opinion that souls exist, and can be harmed. Furthermore, I take the harm seriously - with no God to bail me out, I have to.

Oh. Okay. I thought you were arguing from the point of view of an atheist, who does not believe in a soul.

Thing is - and this is not mean to be dismissive - the point of view of a theist is obvious and goes without saying. Of course they won't sign because of course they believe there is a soul, so of course they're not going to sign it away.
This thread really only addresses the the point of view of atheists, who do not believe in the soul, and I am inviting atheists to put that belief to a test of my own devising.

Yes. It is also flawed when you use it, as here. Not at all. Read the original in the Christian Bible, where the prophet Jesus of Nazareth deals with the argument at its root in a couple of places. He also, btw, describes the nature of the entity presenting such argument as legitimate.

You're missing the point. From an atheist stand-point, the soul does not exist. But they cannot prove the truth or falsehood of that until their death.

This is not the same is 'God will protect you if you jump off a cliff'. Anyone can prove the falsehood of that claim.


So, the test here - the whole point of this thread is this: as an atheist, are you so certain that their is no eternal soul, that you will (symbolically) sign it away? The risk of being wrong (i.e. turns out you do have an eternal soul after all) is that you spend the rest of eternity enslaved to (whoever holds the contract).

 

[DaveC426913]

Woud you make any of those sacrifices unless ther was at least an equal personal payoff.???

It isn't really about 'personal payoff'; it's more about 'how kind can I be before the deed's interference in my own well-being outweighs my compassion'.

Give an example of Bible Jesus actin selflessly.!!!

I'm afraid there are people much more able to answer that question than I.

Oh. He cared for the lepers. He risked his own health to do so.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

...the whole point of this thread is this: as an atheist, are you so certain that their is no eternal soul, that you will (symbolically) sign it away? The risk of being wrong (i.e. turns out you do have an eternal soul after all) is that you spend the rest of eternity enslaved to (whoever holds the contract).

Clear enuff... an this red "X" is symbolic of me signin in blood that i want to trade my soul* for lots of money.!!!

*As described in the Holey Bible.!!!

 

[kx000]

Money doesn't mean much to me.

Tit for tat.

Become my servant until your death and I will serve you upon mine.

Would you sign?

Real wealth is mind. Knowledge. Don't let dollar bills drive the misconception of wealth.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

It isn't really about 'personal payoff'; it's more about 'how kind can I be before the deed's interference in my own well-being outweighs my compassion'.

Thanks... you said it beter than i did.!!!

Oh. He cared for the lepers. He risked his own health to do so.

Luckily for the lepers... Jesuses payoff was to for-fill his desire to be kind... weighed aganst the low risk of becomin ill.!!!

 

[spidergoat]

Real wealth is mind. Knowledge. Don't let dollar bills drive the misconception of wealth.

One who worships the money god will be amply rewarded. One who worships the other God will be stripped naked and left in the streets.

 

[DaveC426913]

Luckily for the lepers... Jesuses payoff was to for-fill his desire to be kind... weighed aganst the low risk of becomin ill.!!!

I've heard this argument before; I think it's lame.

A have a friend "E" that claims it is logically impossible to commit a selfless act. "E" claims all acts that are supposedly selfless actually benefit the doer, because they feel better about themselves.

I think that's a misinterpretation of selflessness. No one said you can't be pleased by committing a selfless act, the key to a selfless act is that you put others' needs and wants before your own - not that you have none.

If E were correct, it would mean I give away my canteen primarily because it makes me feel better to do so.

Think about this:
Two of us, A and B. in the desert. I give my colleague B my canteen and, before he can drink any, he trips and drops it, bouncing over a cliff.

E thinks that my act, while seeming selfless, is really selfish.
Is it? Do I derive pleasure merely from the offer of water? Or is it only meaningful if my B's suffering is actually relieved?

A proper definition of selflessness means it really is about the other person's relief. It is not about how I feel about my own deed.

 

[kx000]

One who worships the money god will be amply rewarded. One who worships the other God will be stripped naked and left in the streets.

Don't you see? Money God belongs amongst Love God, and Passive God in the pantheon of these Gods.

 

[Enmos]

I've heard this argument before; I think it's lame.

A have a friend "E" that claims it is logically impossible to commit a selfless act. "E" claims all acts that are supposedly selfless actually benefit the doer, because they feel better about themselves.

I think that's a misinterpretation of selflessness. No one said you can't be pleased by committing a selfless act, the key to a selfless act is that you put others' needs and wants before your own - not that you have none.

If E were correct, it would mean I give away my canteen primarily because it makes me feel better to do so.

Think about this:
Two of us, A and B. in the desert. I give my colleague B my canteen and, before he can drink any, he trips and drops it, bouncing over a cliff.

E thinks that my act, while seeming selfless, is really selfish.
Is it? Do I derive pleasure merely from the offer of water? Or is it only meaningful if my B's suffering is actually relieved?

A proper definition of selflessness means it really is about the other person's relief. It is not about how I feel about my own deed.

Feeling good about it is not the reason, but it is a stimulus. 'Expected' reciprocity is the actual (evolutionary) reason.