|
GeorgiaNerd -> RE: With much speaking...comes folly? (5/3/2008 10:32:51 AM)
|
It is exam week for me, and perhaps some of the others.
Oldmethuselah, I would like to better understand your argument because much of it does not make sense to me.
quote:
A) The African lion sleeps most of the day basking under trees, is pretty much the top of the food chain, has his meals brought to him by his mate and, when the pro-genitive mood takes him has been observed to span some ten hours in the diversion...
B) The Coastal Apes (sorry can't remember which locale) living a fairly wretched existence windswept wet conditions, where infighting and survival takes up almost all of their sorry existence...
Now the actions of NEITHER the "Happy" lions nor the "Sad" apes can be considered in anyway immoral whether resting or disemboweling an enemy or a prey, and, other than their momentary pleasure, it would be extremely anthropomorphic of us to attribute to them any noble or higher thoughts of "the greater good" or an actual "larger knowledge" of their actions...
in fact, in the vernacular, as I am sure you are aware... they are call "AMORAL"
Agreed for the most part. As far as I know, we don't know what the thought processes of other animals is. Can we say for certain that other animals never have any higher thoughts?
quote:
Now, an atheistic human, observing he is part of a group of creatures - many of which are deluded into thinking their lives have some sort of lasting significance - really only has to make decisions to maximize his personal pleasure, and if it is useful to exploit these weaknesses in others, then so be it.
The clinical definition of a "sociopath" includes the notion of a chameleon like creature who adopts whatever survival methods work best. IF caught in something others call "illegal", he becomes the model prisoner until released, and then asap reverts to a behavior which is best described as "amoral"
I submit to you that sociopathy is the most logical philosophy for an atheist. There really is no "after me", as indeed, there really was no "before me". (Like our lion and ape friends)
Now you and I both know atheists who are self-sacrificing and noble, but - unless it can be proven that they have some ulterior self-serving motive - I would have to tell them that they are being "illogical"
Humans do adopt whatever survival method works best. But you seem to imply that this always entails exploiting others. Many atheists believe, including myself, that humans are just another part of the animal kingdom. So the question would be is the exploitation-only view consistent with the natural law of the animal kingdom? Even a very limited knowledge of ecology would tell you that it is not. Seeing that commensalism happens so commonly in the animal kingdom, why is all noble behavior illogical for atheists?
quote:
Christians believe there is such a thing as Truth, Right and Wrong and a whole set of other values blah blah blah..
Why would atheists not believe in truth? That would be delusional at best. Without understanding this point, the rest of your post doesn't make sense to me. Right and wrong I'll give you because many of us don't believe in absolute morality. But all do have to make judgments of right and wrong, even if only for the self, everyday.
quote:
within the framework of atheism, you can "find them wanting" merely because they displease you,
BUT, within the framework of a system that believes in meaning and logic,
if McDowell's or Strobel's work are ill-researched or incomplete, CHRISTIANS should join you in decrying them, since Christians believe in things like "right" and "wrong" or "accurate" and "inaccurate"...
There is an interesting trend that I have noticed among the Christians, atheists, and others when engaging these arguments. The more the author agrees with one's point of view, the less likely one is to notice inaccuracies, illogical arguments, and incompleteness in the work. Take the Strobel work for instance. It is a work that could only persuade the most illogical of atheists if any at all, and yet it is the book that most Christians recommend first to skeptics.
quote:
AND that brings us to "LOGIC" - there really is NO NEED for an atheist to follow a trained argument, IF by other means, such as Foul Language, Ad Hominem Attacks and Deviations, the atheist can WIN his point. Indeed the whole concept of a "trained argument" is a construct and a conceit that some other humans have devised.... As I say though, there is NO CONSTRAINT on a true atheist to think logically, only "WINNINGly" (pragmatically - whatever works)
Going with the trend I have previously stated, the "other side" is likely to notice when these techniques are used. This is why they are used as a last resort or when the opposition has no argument in response. When they are used, it is very likely that the individual using them is about to lose. Logic and well thought out arguments are the way to win. But, even if this wasn't the case, a fundamental assumption is made that I am not sure is correct. Is the goal always to "win" the argument? And why? It seems to me like there are many other goals of debate.
|
|
|
|