For former Mormons who became atheists

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Sub-Genius,

It is possible by your own subscribed and prior declared philosophy......i can only assume you a referring to the biochemical process that occur inside the boundaries of a person's skin?
Were you just being poetic or is there an actual "process" that you know of?

Cognitive processes.

Impossible! you are contradicting yourself.....how is it possible for "personal feelings" (as opposed to impersonal feeling?) to influence external stimuli? These "personal feelings" are products of that stimuli, they are wholly reliant on that stimuli! If you are admitting your own inability to discern "feelings" then surely that must be either a developmental defect or a retardation in one of those "internal processes".

I was addressing your confusing objectivity with subjectivity.

what laws? laws like gravity...laws that govern chemical reactions...perhaps you are unaware that certain chemicals, when combined, will produce a reaction...and that reaction is inescapable...those chemicals are incapable of "reacting" any other way.
As for light being a wave or a particle, that question does not negate natural laws...our awareness of a natural law does not determine its existence....the earth was spinning around the sun before we ever realized it was.

Quantum physics. I recommend reading Who's Afraid of Schrodinger's Cat. Regardless, immutable laws are objective, and not influenced by your subjectivity.

ironically you just made a faith based statement....and it is completely impossible for your atheism/humanism to avoid that conclusion. Your own declaration of being an atheist/hunanist makes it impossible for you to deny that you are bound to the laws of the universe...whatever those laws may be.....unless you are claiming, now, that there is a supernatural?

I made a factual statement. It's impossible to truly know and understand your internal processes, experiences, etc... You can tell me to the best of your ability what you're experiencing, and I can attempt to relate to your statements, but ultimately you're alone with your experiences.

No, crime would still be possible..

Not according to your statement before. If every human process is predictable and consistent pre-crime units would be established and any crime would be preempted. Additionally, criminals would be identified early on and over a period of time be weeded out of the gene pool.

i am pretty sure they do not violate or circumvent the law of gravity...in fact they spend quite a bit of effort in order to adhere to that law....hint: big rocket engine. Me jumping in the air is not circumventing the law of gravity...in fact that action confirms it...the law requires me to exert a specific and immutable force due to gravity...i can not somehow magically render the law of gravity non-existent as you apparently imagine the magic rocket does.
If you have proof of NASA somehow suspending or negating the law of gravity, please post it.

Circumvent means to find a way around (an obstacle), or to overcome a difficulty. I'm pretty sure NASA has found a way around the problem of gravity. Let's not quibble over minutiae...

please...at best your trying to confuse correlation with causation....and your notion of "as society matures" is imaginary and without reference. You are suddenly on the objective-train? Please, provide evidence that society is "maturing"... exactly what is a "fully developed" society? The only reasonable conclusion form history is that atheists are a social defect.

Well. European countries are relatively mature. They're more Atheistic now than ever. Your description for Atheists being a social defect is offensive. I feel similarly toward Theists, but I wouldn't have said it because I'm trying to be civil.

Ultimately your claim that you are an atheist requires you to be amoral (not immoral...amoral)...

I'm not sure who gave you the authority to determine my morality, or that of an entire block of the population. I have my own set of morals therefore I'm not amoral.

yet you contradict that notion by claiming to be a humanist...i assume a secular humanist, because a religious humanist would negate your atheism...nevertheless, it might be interesting for you to start a thread where you provide, if possible, the basis for which you derive your moral code...my guess is that it is derived from the "seat of my pants" school of thought.

I suppose that's better than deriving it from the fantasies and tall tales of your parents which are most likely derived from a book of savages written 2,000 years ago, no?

V/R
Dr. Cam

[Guest]

...

[Guest]

What about Middle east countries? aren't they much more mature than European in timeline?

No. They're not mature societies. They're immature societies crippled by god-belief and the resultant system under which they're governed.

As another example Japan can be considered a mature society now. You can see Atheism flourishes as a result. To quote what a wise person once wrote:

There goes your objectivity again! I think you have it backward, yet again. As our society matures, and becomes more and more sophisticated the rejection of God-belief is increasing. I believe easily accessible knowledge, mass education, and the mass communication of ideas are facilitating this phenomenon. Typically in the more restrictive societies, to include the undereducated, do you see Theism flourish unabated.

Your stereotypical Middle Eastern country doesn't really fall under that definition.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[Guest]

...

[_subgenius]

What about Middle east countries? aren't they much more mature than European in timeline?

No. They're not mature societies. They're immature societies crippled by god-belief and the resultant system under which they're governed.

As another example Japan can be considered a mature society now. You can see Atheism flourishes as a result. To quote what a wise person once wrote:

There goes your objectivity again! I think you have it backward, yet again. As our society matures, and becomes more and more sophisticated the rejection of God-belief is increasing. I believe easily accessible knowledge, mass education, and the mass communication of ideas are facilitating this phenomenon. Typically in the more restrictive societies, to include the undereducated, do you see Theism flourish unabated.

Your stereotypical Middle Eastern country doesn't really fall under that definition.

V/R
Dr. Cam

Your poetic about "mature" society is ironic.
1. social maturity as you are using it is rather arbitrary and without reference.
2. maturity, as used to describe fruit is an objective term. As you are trying to force into some meaning of "society" it is ambiguous at best.
3. Obviously you...yes, you...have determined (no doubt through some magical process)...what a mature society "must be"....but have yet to present this determination in tangible terms.
4. Far as i can tell you consider maturity as equivalent to "sophistication"...which can only mean that you consider maturity, in the social sense, as some measure of class, status, and privilege.
5. Your statements about "maturity" with regards to society seem contrary to your admitted philosophy of human beings having the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives.
6. You also seem to be unable to provide the your required ethic which is based on human and other natural values...as they are capable by human beings.
7. Seemingly your "mature" and "progressive" society/individual ultimately results from having the dominant position biochemically.

[_subgenius]

Hello Sub-Genius,

Hello, Doctor CamNC4Me

Cognitive processes.

which, by your admission of being an atheist/humanist can only be resulting from biochemical process "internal".
Memory, language, problem solving, senses..etc... all rely on the various complex/simple biochemical processes of the human body.
So, cognition is nothing more than a biochemical process...a biochemical reaction....a reaction.
And as such it is both reliant on the laws which govern biochemistry and ultimately external stimuli.
So, your "cognition" is nothing more than an illusion in as much as it is able to "choose otherwise"...cognition is like breathing or a heart beat...or a sneeze...simply a biochemical reaction to the environment for some yet to be discussed biological purpose....or if no "purpose" is considered then for no reason at all.

I was addressing your confusing objectivity with subjectivity.

i disagree.
you have yet to prove that "feelings" are either objective or subjective...or that they are exclusive of either.
Since your self-proclaimed position does not allow for anything to be mind-independent you are unable to discount either objectivity or subjectivity...quite simply you are unable to recognize either.
They conflict with your position...to claim that there is nothing "mind-independent" is an objective position in and of itself.
That resulting paradox, or any paradox, is not permissible to a humanist - which relies on reason and can not rely on anything which might defy that reliance.
So, it is troubling that you are attempting to discuss the very idea of subjectivity or objectivity....that dualism is not afforded to you.

Quantum physics. I recommend reading Who's Afraid of Schrodinger's Cat. Regardless, immutable laws are objective, and not influenced by your subjectivity.

agreed. According to you, every Human Being must adhere to the immutable laws thus your proposed subjectivity is an illusion...you are proposing fantasy. According to you, no one is capable of influencing these immutable laws but also according to you, there is nothing but these immutable laws.

I made a factual statement. It's impossible to truly know and understand your internal processes, experiences, etc... You can tell me to the best of your ability what you're experiencing, and I can attempt to relate to your statements, but ultimately you're alone with your experiences.

you repeating it does not make it factual.
We have already established that your doctrine requires that both of our experiences are the results of immutable processes.
There is no manner, according to your doctrine, for you to even know that you can "not" relate.

Not according to your statement before. If every human process is predictable and consistent pre-crime units would be established and any crime would be preempted. Additionally, criminals would be identified early on and over a period of time be weeded out of the gene pool.

ever heard of the insanity defense? whenever a mentally disturbed person is known they are denied access to guns, etc...
People are medicated and manipulated all the time in order to prevent criminal activity.
Just because we have a limited ability to predict does not mean the process does not exist.
Besides, according to your doctrine, there can be no other explanation for human behavior...criminal or not. All behavior is the result of biochemical processes which are ultimately unable to influence, resist, or manipulate the immutable laws of the universe.

Circumvent means to find a way around (an obstacle), or to overcome a difficulty. I'm pretty sure NASA has found a way around the problem of gravity. Let's not quibble over minutiae...

i am aware of what circumvent means....and a rocket engine does not circumvent the law of gravity...it actually recognizes and affirms the law. The law is still acting upon the rocket.
NASA has merely recognized the law of gravity, and that very law is how they were able to get to the moon.
And its not quibbling..its your refusal to admit you were wrong on that point.

Well. European countries are relatively mature. They're more Atheistic now than ever. Your description for Atheists being a social defect is offensive. I feel similarly toward Theists, but I wouldn't have said it because I'm trying to be civil.

"relatively"?....relative to what? (and listing another country is not the answer)...what magical measure are you using to define 'social maturity"?
As for socially defective...i have provided the evidence that supports my claim...and apparently your evidence is just a "feeling".
In the natural world and in scientific terms the occurrence of atheists and their treatment by the larger population supports their being defective.
Just as an animal will destroy or abandon a defective member of the herd....its not offensive...it is natural....it is in tune with Humanist doctrine.

I'm not sure who gave you the authority to determine my morality, or that of an entire block of the population. I have my own set of morals therefore I'm not amoral.

no one gave me authority...it is the reasonable conclusion. Atheists have no "objective" source to derive morality...thus making it a rather arbitrary system...a kind of "by the seat of their pants" ethics...typically it is just easier for an atheist to not be concerned with questions of what may be an absolute or objective right/wrong...it is a doctrine not afforded to their belief system. Not to say they can not behave in a "good" way...it is just that they have no moral justification for doing so...theirs is typical more self-centered in reason.

I suppose that's better than deriving it from the fantasies and tall tales of your parents which are most likely derived from a book of savages written 2,000 years ago, no?

hmmm....."no"
again, you suppose because you have no foundation...you should stick with being amoral..otherwise you open the door to the supernatural which erodes your whole system and makes you look rather primitive in your beliefs (which i consider them to be).
For a humanist your reasoning seems a little off.
So, when given the choice between having a moral system founded on principles which have been utilized with success for thousands of years and among millions of people or having one based on chance, speculation, and ad hoc experience only as it relates to the "self" (or basically having one based on, as you admit, nothing useful).....you would choose the latter
interesting
interesting

[_Alfredo]

Your poetic about "mature" society is ironic.
1. social maturity as you are using it is rather arbitrary and without reference.
2. maturity, as used to describe fruit is an objective term. As you are trying to force into some meaning of "society" it is ambiguous at best.
3. Obviously you...yes, you...have determined (no doubt through some magical process)...what a mature society "must be"....but have yet to present this determination in tangible terms.
4. Far as i can tell you consider maturity as equivalent to "sophistication"...which can only mean that you consider maturity, in the social sense, as some measure of class, status, and privilege.
5. Your statements about "maturity" with regards to society seem contrary to your admitted philosophy of human beings having the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives.
6. You also seem to be unable to provide the your required ethic which is based on human and other natural values...as they are capable by human beings.
7. Seemingly your "mature" and "progressive" society/individual ultimately results from having the dominant position biochemically.

Wow, sub. Way to break down the meaning of his terms directly and point-by-point. I had the feeling you knew how.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Sub-Genius,

Your poetic about "mature" society is ironic.

I'm afraid I don't understand your statement. My poetic is what and how is it ironic?

1. social maturity as you are using it is rather arbitrary and without reference.

I'm not sure how you got that. I simply stated that as OUR society matures, and becomes more and more sophisticated, the rejection of God-belief is increasing. I then went on to state a belief as to why that's the case.

2. maturity, as used to describe fruit is an objective term. As you are trying to force into some meaning of "society" it is ambiguous at best.

Maturity means, among other things, a capacity for tolerating ideas, [a capacity] which at its best is part of social maturity. A mature social system allows freedom of ideas and the free expression of them. If this is idea puts you out then I'd recommend some introspection on the matter.

3. Obviously you...yes, you...have determined (no doubt through some magical process)...what a mature society "must be"....but have yet to present this determination in tangible terms.

No. I didn't use magic. I simply thought about it. I also presented "tangible terms" when I said, "As our society matures, and becomes more and more sophisticated the rejection of God-belief is increasing. I believe easily accessible knowledge, mass education, and the mass communication of ideas are facilitating this phenomenon. Typically in the more restrictive societies, to include the undereducated, do you see Theism flourish unabated."

4. Far as i can tell you consider maturity as equivalent to "sophistication"...which can only mean that you consider maturity, in the social sense, as some measure of class, status, and privilege.

No. This might help you with the concept:

http://community-roundtable.com/wp-cont ... ighRes.jpg

5. Your statements about "maturity" with regards to society seem contrary to your admitted philosophy of human beings having the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives.

I believe people, within a mature society, have a greater chance at achieving what you're describing. Within the constrictions of an immature society it's unlikely many will or can do the same.

6. You also seem to be unable to provide the your required ethic which is based on human and other natural values...as they are capable by human beings.

I have no idea what you just wrote means.

7. Seemingly your "mature" and "progressive" society/individual ultimately results from having the dominant position biochemically.

I have no idea what you just wrote means.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[Guest]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... kSRLYSojo#!

[Guest]

...