The gulf between us

[Desert Snake]

Why would I ask you what your religion is? Not all atheist care about theist religions nor do a lot of us care to ask you guys about proof of an existent deity.

If atheism is a religion, and I never came across any influences of god nor belief in one, what is my religion based on?

How are my values and morals based on something that does not exist?

This is all obfuscation, atheists are religious, or rather have a faith.

Usually they are worshipping at the altar of the non-existant deity.

Your usage of semantics would mean that I don't have a religion, etc.

 

[bobhikes]

Legal sanctions, becoming a social pariah, destruction of career. etc

Why do we have legal sanctions, logically why is it wrong to kill another person. We kill other animals all the time. We kill plants. As long as we need them for survival we allow ourselves to kill them. If there is a war we are even allowed to kill humans even innocents. What logical statement prevents us from killing for our survival. In the past duels were allowed.

Social pariah is an emotional feeling fully logical person would not understand it.

You could have a career that allows you to kill others, any police force and logically plan it so you don't get caught.

 

[bobhikes]

It would depend on it's core programming analogous to your core beliefs and evolved neurological determinations/tendencies/capacities, like empathy and compassion.

I would recommend hardwiring an AI with Asimov's three Laws of Robotics at least, and an off button that cannot be interrupted or deactivated.

You asked why a person without emotions would be as bad as a person without logic and every time I answer you add emotions. Empathy and compassion are emotions.

 

[Corvus]

You asked why a person without emotions would be as bad as a person without logic and every time I answer you add emotions. Empathy and compassion are emotions.

Not having empathy or compassion does not make you a bad person.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This is all obfuscation, atheists are religious, or rather have a faith.

Usually they are worshipping at the altar of the non-existant deity.

Your usage of semantics would mean that I don't have a religion, etc.

Instead of being sarcastic, just talk.

Atheism just means lack of belief in deities.
Theism means belief in deities.

None are religions.

There are religions that have no belief in god
There are religions that do believe in god

They are either atheistic religions
Or they are theistic religions

No all atheist fall into any of these two categories. I know this because I am one of them.

I don't understand your either/or thinking. Maybe youre' trying to understand how people who don't believe in deities also don't have a religion?

 

[Corvus]

Why do we have legal sanctions, logically why is it wrong to kill another person. We kill other animals all the time. We kill plants. As long as we need them for survival we allow ourselves to kill them. If there is a war we are even allowed to kill humans even innocents. What logical statement prevents us from killing for our survival. In the past duels were allowed.

Social pariah is an emotional feeling fully logical person would not understand it.

You could have a career that allows you to kill others, any police force and logically plan it so you don't get caught.

I am not sure what you are talking about. The only reason it is 'wrong' to kill someone is because it goes against conventional law and social contracts. The taboo of murder applies to kin. These days kin means everyone, not so in the past. Murder is an evolving concept. All morality is subjective. There is no such thing as good or bad.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

One of my favorite scenes

KIRK: What I don't understand is how were you able to identify our counterparts so quickly?

SPOCK: It was far easier for you as civilised men to behave like barbarians, than it was for them as barbarians to behave like civilised men.​

She pauses.
Fascinating.

 

[bobhikes]

Not having empathy or compassion does not make you a bad person.

I never said it did, I said being completely logic without emotion is as bad as being completely emotional without logic. You said why and when I answer you keep adding emotions to logic and saying see your wrong.

 

[Prestor John]

I am finding that I cannot communicate with theists here, the same pattern I have experienced elsewhere. We are simply so different that discussion is all but impossible. What am i doing wrong? Logic does not move these people, I have no other way of thinking. So we are at an impasse. How can I talk to these people in terms they will understand? It is frustrating because I wish to understand religious belief and religious people, if I am to judge religion and religious belief fairly and to treat religious believers less contemptuously and dismissively. As I have been tasked to do by RL persons.

Perhaps you should refrain from the passive aggressiveness.

The OP is a classic example.

Asking for help to understand others while claiming that it is their fault that you cannot understand them.

Try adding some humility and sincerity.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Let me first state that I highly doubt Corvus is as strictly logical in his outward dealings as he professes, and that his posts on this forum are more likely an affectation of such. However, there are refutations to some of your points about "emotion" having to play some role in some of the following...

Why do we have legal sanctions, logically why is it wrong to kill another person. We kill other animals all the time. We kill plants. As long as we need them for survival we allow ourselves to kill them. If there is a war we are even allowed to kill humans even innocents. What logical statement prevents us from killing for our survival. In the past duels were allowed.

A logical thinking mind need do nothing more than understand the actions and their consequences, and then weigh the benefit vs. detriment of each action, selecting the most viable alternative among them. So, it wouldn't matter WHY we have "legal sanctions" against certain actions to the logical mind, it would only need to know that there are such sanctions, and that it may be facing the judgment and action of others if it were to take action and "break the rules." The "logical statement [that] prevents us from killing for our survival" is built around our survival being hindered by being made the target of said "legal sanctions." If the outcome of the potential committal of crime is understood to put one in a position worse off than they are better if they were to get away with it, then that potential outcome logically needs to be weighed.

Social pariah is an emotional feeling fully logical person would not understand it.

This is not necessarily true either. The consequence of being ostracized by your fellow members of society can be understood, even if you can't understand their reason for doing so. Knowledge that you may become a "social pariah" - a condition under which certain portions of your own survival or comfort are compromised - is, again, a potential outcome that needs to be weighed before taking action.

You could have a career that allows you to kill others, any police force and logically plan it so you don't get caught.

But the logical mind doesn't necessarily "want" to kill. If there is no derived benefit, then there is no sense to the action, and it would be deemed illogical. The end goal is not "killing", which should be extremely obvious. I suspect you know this, and are grasping at straws in order to keep up your side of the argument.

 

[bobhikes]

I am not sure what you are talking about. The only reason it is 'wrong' to kill someone is because it goes against conventional law and social contracts. The taboo of murder applies to kin. These days kin means everyone, not so in the past. Murder is an evolving concept. All morality is subjective. There is no such thing as good or bad.

None of this is logical, It appears you can't even separate logic from emotion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I might sound like Spock, but then that would only be logical, wouldn't it? Since he is reputedly consistently logical.

Well, one thing about Spock (and probably the message of why Spock is half human) is that we can see our logical half fighting with our emotional half.

Instead of fighting over logic-the atheist or fighting over emotion-the theist and telling each other that you guys are savages (context) because one can't think and the other can't feel,

why not find a balance between the two. That's what the whole dialogue between McCoy, Kirk, and Spock is finding the balance between our human emotions and logic.

In my opinion, though, we learn things from we personally and individually experience, observe, and study. We form biases right from the start. So, I don't see how it's logical to argue as if logic plays a better role on determining what's right than emotions.

The other way around. After my grandmother passed away, I almost got hit by a car, and my grandmother held be back. I called my Catholic friend that next second after the whiplash of someone pushing me, and she says:

"Don't question it." Just go with it.

If you want to talk with theist, just go with it. Ask them about their experiences. Take their experiences as truth because it isn't one or the other. Theist believe that their experiences and their bias (personal perspectives and judgement) of things are objective logic. It's not that non-theist have the "right" understanding or sane.

It just means we think differently. It's frustrating, I know. Watch Amok Time in Star Trek Original Series. That's how Spock handles it.

 

[bobhikes]

Let me first state that I highly doubt Corvus is as strictly logical in his outward dealings as he professes, and that his posts on this forum are more likely an affectation of such. However, there are refutations to some of your points about "emotion" having to play some role in some of the following...


A logical thinking mind need do nothing more than understand the actions and their consequences, and then weigh the benefit vs. detriment of each action, and select the most viable alternative among them. So, it wouldn't matter WHY we have legal sanctions against certain actions to the logical mind, it would only need to know that there are such sanctions, and that it may be facing the judgment and action of others if it were to take action to break "the rules." The "logical statement [that] prevents us from killing for our survival" is built around our survival being hindered by being made the target of said "legal sanctions." If the outcome of the potential committal of crime is understood to put one in a position worse off than they are better if they were to get away with it, then that potential outcome logically needs to be weighed.


This is not necessarily true either. The consequence of being ostracized by your fellow members of society can be understood, even if you can't understand their reason for doing so. Knowledge that you may become a "social pariah" - a condition under which certain portions of your own survival or comfort are compromised - is, again, a potential outcome that needs to be weighed before taking action.

But the logical mind doesn't necessarily "want" to kill. If there is no derived benefit, then there is no sense to the action, and it would be deemed illogical. The end goal is not "killing", which should be extremely obvious. I suspect you know this, and are grasping at straws in order to keep up your side of the argument.

I never said anyone would have to kill, I said it could be a logically correct answer. People tend to use an emotional balance about killing without this emotional balance killing would be easier. A lot of things would be easier without empathy or compassion. My statement was that a completely logical person(no emotions) would be just as bad as a completely emotional person(no logic).

 

[Grandliseur]

Which is irrational. Not least because you can't ALL be RIGHT!. About your respective religions and numerous Gods. Why YOUR GOD?

So utterly alien to me..

We have faith in the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which works well enough for people to post laughable inanity on here.

So, I was right when I said that you guys think our position baseless. The gulf between us cannot be bridged, the attempt from our side of communicating even when using scientific data falls flat on its face. Yours face the same problem.

As you say, "utterly alien to me." As you think your position is right, so do we think ours right. Same difference, but not same position.

 

[YmirGF]

Not having empathy or compassion does not make you a bad person.

No, it does not, but it does make it far more difficult to understand other human animals. From this "strong" atheists view, I ignore emotional considerations only in some circumstances, and go with purely logical considerations. However, there are some arenas where I employ emotional considerations due to mood, appeal or artistic merit. It seems perfectly logical to operate this way from MY perspective because I now have a fairly large body of experience to draw on where I let emotional considerations affect a given outcome.

My guess is that you are somewhat "empathy challenged" and probably have difficulty forming relationships... though I am going out on a limb with that one. The problem with going 100% logical is that human animals are simply not 100% logical creatures and treating them as if they were is not particularly helpful especially if one seeks to understand the little critters.

Again, I'm a so-called "strong" atheist who has little problem understanding or communicating with your garden variety theist. It's not that I agree with them, but I do understand what they are saying, and from a certain perspective there is a strange logic at play in their thinking. I don't know, you might want to review the concepts at play in what is known as suspension of disbelief.

 

[Terese]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. - Carl Sagan

 

[Quintessence]

I am finding that I cannot communicate with theists here, the same pattern I have experienced elsewhere. We are simply so different that discussion is all but impossible. What am i doing wrong?

A few questions for you. When you say you cannot communicate, what specifically do you mean? What is your goal with these communications?

Do you mean exchanges of ideas in a non-judgmenetal fashion where both parties listen openly to each other? If so, the art of active listening applies universally across whatever groups you might be trying to communicate with - there's nothing special about theists there.

But perhaps, on the other hand, you are not so much looking to communicate as you are intending to debate, win arguments, and prove to them you are right and they are wrong? That sort of "communication" (not the word I would use to describe it) is going to raise walls regardless of what group you are interacting with.

In general, I would suspect that your expectations have played no small part in creating a self-fullfilling prophecy here. Adjusting your expectations should help.

Logic does not move these people, I have no other way of thinking.

Another question for you - why do you believe logic does not move theists? When you say "these people" or "theists" what specifically do you mean? Near as I can tell, being a theist in no way precludes using or being moved by logic.

Honestly, the best advice I have for you right now is to stop thinking about "theists" as if they're some sort of meaningful group you can generalize about in any fashion. The only thing that can be said about theists as a group is that a theist is a person who accepts some sort of deity concept. It tells you nothing else about that person. Don't think "theists." Think "this individual I interacted with." Because we are individuals.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

All areas, religion is illogical from start to finish, mainly the rejection of the scientific method in favour of articles of faith, when those articles of faith contradict scientific theory. That's a problem.

I think, as a theist, it helps to consider religion as more like a theological fandom. Whether the (O)bject of fandom is real is rather beside the point: religion provides social, cultural, and other roots to ground people. Have you ever had the joy of watching Star Trek vs Star Wars debates? Same difference. None of it is real, but people can be weird. I think the lowest point of fandom was when it came out Captain America is having some Hydra issues and the creators of this OBVIOUSLY FAKE character got death threats from fans. I don't read the comics, but I have a hard time believing the thing people took away from squeaky clean Cap is "call for the deaths of people who drew a comic book".

I am trying to use reason to defeat hatred. I am trying to understand. I am looking for reasons not to persecute theists, in effect.

Again, look at it as a fandom where the (O)bject of the fandom is irrelevant and I find it gets easier to understand.

Atheists don't want to talk about creation and theists don't want to talk about "randomness."

God just deciding out of the blue to create the universe isn't randomness?

Emotions are not good at all. They delude and confound people. Emotive people make terrible mistakes.

Even the Vulcans were revealed to be with emotion, despite their attempts to suppress it.

There is no basis in logic for beliefs in unverifiable things. This discontinuity of reason is problematic for me. I have never experienced love, so I don't what that is. Physical pain yes.

Yes, I have also realized that people who have never had this issue tend to have certain worldviews that don't match up to reality. I sympathize.

You understand why many scientists have a fear of AI. AI has no emotional side. If a valid answer is to kill off half the population it may just kill off half the population.

So would the gods of many belief systems, though.

For little else than some emotional "they irritated Me" kind of nonsense, as well.

Perhaps if you come to the realization that Mr. Spock was a fictional character your horizons will expand far enough to communicate with people who believe in God.

Though there are certain spectrums where logic is more appreciated than emotion.

I, myself, obviously won't agree with Corvus as I'm a theist, but I appreciate Corvus' logic because everything should be based on it.

Have you seen any movies with AI for example 2001 a Space Odyssey.

It's also illogical to assume technology will just want to kill everyone. Garbage In, Garbage Out. Why does Skynet want to kill all humans? We programmed it to, that's why. I'd come to the conclusion we deserve death too. However, even Skynet (or, rather, certain terminators) can learn we are not all just raging hawks bent on global destruction.

The problem is that AI is not human at all and without emotional connection to Humans may actually decide to kill off all humans or just keep the ones necessary as slaves.

The Terminator franchise dealt with this issue in The Sarah Connor Chronicles.
John Henry

Let me first state that I highly doubt Corvus is as strictly logical in his outward dealings as he professes, and that his posts on this forum are more likely an affectation of such.

Indeed. Having distaste is emotional, not logical.

Well, one thing about Spock (and probably the message of why Spock is half human) is that we can see our logical half fighting with our emotional half.

Even Data, before the silly "emotion chip" thing, had obvious emotional reactions. True, nearly all sci-fi bots/AI I can think of are guilty of at least a little emotion, though it could be due to the fact they are all played by emotional humans who can't hide it 100%. Still ... it's there ....

 

[Thief]

I am finding that I cannot communicate with theists here, the same pattern I have experienced elsewhere. We are simply so different that discussion is all but impossible. What am i doing wrong? Logic does not move these people, I have no other way of thinking. So we are at an impasse. How can I talk to these people in terms they will understand? It is frustrating because I wish to understand religious belief and religious people, if I am to judge religion and religious belief fairly and to treat religious believers less contemptuously and dismissively. As I have been tasked to do by RL persons.

got here late.....sorry....

I see no problem....
Say as you please with your logic and reason in play

I shall counter as best I can

such is debate

 

[Thief]

Emotions are not good at all. They delude and confound people. Emotive people make terrible mistakes.

and you would prefer an existence similar to the Borg of Star Trek fame?

all of one mind.....no emotion
the only drive is acquisition and replenishment of existence
more of the same with only physical improvement

like a computer that has learned to replicate
and can assimilate your flesh

resistance is futile!