Trouble at mill

[SteveH]

Well, I'm a rule-utilitarian. Do you disagree with me?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, I'm a rule-utilitarian. Do you disagree with me?

I don't understand what that is.

[SteveH]

Utilitarianism - the ethical position that the good is what conduces to the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
Rule-utilitarianism - the version of utilitarianism which advocates a set of rules which would normally maximise happiness, e.g. kindness and generosity are right, cruelty and greed are wrong, rather than trying to judge each action individually, which would be impractical.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Utilitarianism - the ethical position that the good is what conduces to the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
Rule-utilitarianism - the version of utilitarianism which advocates a set of rules which would normally maximise happiness, e.g. kindness and generosity are right, cruelty and greed are wrong, rather than trying to judge each action individually, which would be impractical.

I don't know if happiness should be the benchmark since a psychopath and sociopath's happiness is obviously not what one should be aiming for.

[Sassy]

https://www.atheists.org/2018/04/update-regarding-david-silverman/

The thing is have they proof and will anyone believe it?

[SteveH]

I don't know if happiness should be the benchmark since a psychopath and sociopath's happiness is obviously not what one should be aiming for.

Greatest happiness of the greatest number. Pay attention at the back, there.

[Dicky Underpants]

Ok I'll type this slowly.
I want Dicky to give us alternative interpretations of the Adam and Eve story.
I have heard of two alternative interpretations:
1: That it is the story of humanity stealing intellectual ability from God. In other words an antitheist fantasy.
2: That it is the story of the discovery of what jews would call ''Chutzpah'', a cheeky audacity. In other words mankind is a kind of confidence trickster.....and only a criminal would take pride in that.

As we were saying lord knows when. Can't think why you want to hear my interpretation of the story. I don't consider the story of any great significance in itself these days, apart from the fact that St Paul gave it significance and his (and St Augustine's) interpretation has had considerable influence on western history.

The two interpretations you give are typically slanted. You've missed out the obvious one adopted by the Ophite Gnostics* (I suppose you'd say that was an antitheist fantasy - except of course the Ophites did believe in God; just not the one to whom you apparently pledge allegiance). The Ophites' interpretation had the obvious advantage of actually being true to what the text actually says namely that God lied, and the serpent told the truth.
Of course,  I don't believe that interpretation either. There's a wanky, pseudo-intellectual one I could give you: several million years ago, our apelike ancestors of the Miocene age lived in happy union with nature, eating bananas and other veg in the African forests. Then, either a few got cut off from their original population and had to strike out for themselves on the open savannahs. Or maybe, there were a few enterprising and curious geniuses who decided to seek pastures new. These soon found that their original sense of unity with nature was lost. And so on through Australopithecus Afarensis etc.
However, neither the latter nor the Ophite explanation have anything whatever to do with stealing or crime, which you seem fixated on.
As for confidence tricksters, you might just be acquainted with the story of Jacob, the confidence trickster par excellence. Yahweh rather liked him, I think you'll find.

*The Gnostics in general didn't like the Old Testament god, considering him evil and ignorant. I find this attitude (and the similar attitude of Marcion) very wrong-headed too. I find this kind of blanket dismissal by certain posters here just as silly. The OT includes some of the most inspiring writings in existence - as well as some of the most disgusting and boring ones.
I don't include the Adam and Eve story among the inspiring ones.

[wigginhall]

That reminds me of Jung's view, or at least one of them, that A and E is about consciousness, which Jung famously describes as a crime against nature.   So A and E become conscious by becoming more separate, or even estranged from nature, each other, etc.   So consciousness involves a kind of alienation.   Interesting that there is the phrase, 'felix culpa', (happy fault), in the medieval church, meaning that the fall was a blessing in disguise.

[Nearly Sane]

That reminds me of Jung's view, or at least one of them, that A and E is about consciousness, which Jung famously describes as a crime against nature.   So A and E become conscious by becoming more separate, or even estranged from nature, each other, etc.   So consciousness involves a kind of alienation.   Interesting that there is the phrase, 'felix culpa', (happy fault), in the medieval church, meaning that the fall was a blessing in disguise.

It's surely in almost any interpretation the gaining of humanity, Knowledge or the attempt to achieve it is crucial to that.

[wigginhall]

Yes, I find Jung's idea of a crime interesting, as this fits with Adam and Eve.   I'm not sure what Jung meant, I suppose that by being conscious, I have to see myself as separate, and in a way, antagonistic to nature, and egotistic.   I suppose also the idea that being unconscious is the baseline, and it's hellish difficult to become more aware.   Also shame. 

[Nearly Sane]

I have to be contrary. But to do that I need to understand separation, as you note. If I am at one with anything, there is only one thing for me.

[Nearly Sane]

And to switch to the Greek myth, knowledge is pain, suffering and death but finally hope because there is nothing that we can hope for without having a reason. There is a good justification  for suffering if you are one type of Christian but it means then that heaven is a hell.

[jeremyp]

1: That it is the story of humanity stealing intellectual ability from God. In other words an antitheist fantasy.

How could that be an anti-theist fantasy? Anti-theists believe there is no god.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How could that be an anti-theist fantasy? Anti-theists believe there is no god.

Not really they are anti god so they include a lot of my old friends on the previous spirituality and religion forum I belong to. Those who would not follow God even if he were proved correct.
Dawkins and Floo keep telling us how evil God must be.

[Maeght]

Not really they are anti god so they include a lot of my old friends on the previous spirituality and religion forum I belong to. Those who would not follow God even if he were proved correct.
Dawkins and Floo keep telling us how evil God must be.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. Antitheism is being against the belief in God isn't it rather than being against God?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

That doesn't make a lot of sense. Antitheism is being against the belief in God isn't it rather than being against God?

“Antitheist” is a term routinely used by Vlad as a slur when actually he just means “atheist”, and – as with most terms he uses and abuses – there’s no knowing what he thinks he means by it from one post to the next. Nonetheless, if it means something like “doesn’t want belief(s) in god(s) to be true” then conceptually at least you could be both a theist and an antitheist – ie, you think there is a god, but really wish there wasn’t.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Maeght,

“Antitheist” is a term routinely used by Vlad as a slur when actually he just means “atheist”

No, it is not.

Someone with only an absence of belief in God (atheist) would not be in a position to make positive statements that contradict what theists believe. They would merely state that they disagree and why.

On the other hand, antitheists are very good at making positive claims (e.g. there is no evidence for God) then running away like cowards hiding behind fallacy this, burden of proof that, ...

[Nearly Sane]

No, it is not.

Someone with only an absence of belief in God (atheist) would not be in a position to make positive statements that contradict what theists believe. They would merely state that they disagree and why.

On the other hand, antitheists are very good at making positive claims (e.g. there is no evidence for God) then running away like cowards hiding behind fallacy this, burden of proof that, ...

Why would a statement of why you disagree not possibly contain pointing out the other person was using a fallacy?

[bluehillside Retd.]

SotS,

No, it is not.

Yes it is. Routinely conversations are had concerning atheism that Vlad responds to by addressing his interlocutor as an "antitheist" as if the terms were interchangeable, presumably because he thinks it’s a slur that’ll prejudice the quality of the argument.

Someone with only an absence of belief in God (atheist) would not be in a position to make positive statements that contradict what theists believe. They would merely state that they disagree and why.

Don’t be silly. When the argument used by the theist is logically false, of course an atheist (or anyone else) can make a “positive statement” that identifies why it’s false. 

On the other hand, antitheists are very good at making positive claims (e.g. there is no evidence for God) then running away like cowards hiding behind fallacy this, burden of proof that, ...

So you assert. Actually the strict use should be, “I’m not aware of evidence for god(s)” but identifying the fallacies in the arguments theists rely on to demonstrate their gods is neither cowardly nor hiding, and again that’s got nothing to do with antitheism. An antitheist for example could think the arguments of the theist to be sound, only he really would prefer that there wern't. 

This isn’t difficult to grasp if you’d only try by the way.

[Gordon]

No, it is not.

Someone with only an absence of belief in God (atheist) would not be in a position to make positive statements that contradict what theists believe. They would merely state that they disagree and why.

On the other hand, antitheists are very good at making positive claims (e.g. there is no evidence for God) then running away like cowards hiding behind fallacy this, burden of proof that, ...

Don't be silly: atheists here have regularly pointed out to you when you (and others) use fallacies, and that doesn't mean they are 'antitheists'.

Your post does confirm, however, that in spite of having your errors pointed to you repeatedly you still don't understand fallacies. 

[Dicky Underpants]

Yes, I find Jung's idea of a crime interesting, as this fits with Adam and Eve.   I'm not sure what Jung meant, I suppose that by being conscious, I have to see myself as separate, and in a way, antagonistic to nature, and egotistic.   I suppose also the idea that being unconscious is the baseline, and it's hellish difficult to become more aware.   Also shame.

Maybe he just wanted to establish a strong connection with the Judaic myth. However, the Prometheus myth also suggests that this assertion of independence from the gods is also something to be punished. And indeed the poor bugger didn't come off too well as a result of his efforts. Fortunately (since these are only stories) old Prometheus had the likes of Shelley and Beethoven to rehabilitate him*.

*Though Mary Shelley (in Frankenstein) was rather less sanguine. As apparently was the subject of the film Ex Machina (which I rather liked):

The inventor of human-like artificial intelligence in the 2015 film Ex Machina, Nathan Bateman, states, "It is what it is. It's Promethean. The clay and fire." His liver is damaged daily from alcoholic binge drinking, he rejuvenates the next morning with a healthy diet and exercise, and ultimately, he is stabbed in the liver (or thereabouts) by his creations.

[Dicky Underpants]

And to switch to the Greek myth, knowledge is pain, suffering and death but finally hope because there is nothing that we can hope for without having a reason. There is a good justification  for suffering if you are one type of Christian but it means then that heaven is a hell.

I think the Greek myths illuminate the human situation better. Their message may be harsher, but do not depend on a highly dubious 'redeemer' in whom one (so it appears) needs to trust with varying degrees of literalism in the Christian view.

[wigginhall]

Yes, Dicky, the Prometheus myth is a nice parallel.  On the redeemer, I think that Jung would say that this exists internally, or psychologically.  My wife has tons of books on this stuff, I can't read them now, they do my 'ead in, innit.  But then she redeemed me!

[Enki]

No, it is not.

Someone with only an absence of belief in God (atheist) would not be in a position to make positive statements that contradict what theists believe. They would merely state that they disagree and why.

On the other hand, antitheists are very good at making positive claims (e.g. there is no evidence for God) then running away like cowards hiding behind fallacy this, burden of proof that, ...

I'm an atheist.  So far, I haven't seen any evidence which illustrates that any god exists. That doesn't mean that I am right, of course, since there may be evidence that I have not yet been made aware of, but I suggest that it is a reasonable and objective holding position.

At any point I can be proved wrong by someone producing evidence that a particular god exists. I would hope that you, in your position as a theist, would be able to present some. So far that has been noticeably lacking. I assure you, I will not run away, but will examine any evidence you present.

How this defines me as an antitheist in your eyes I am at a loss to explain, so, unless you come up with something more substantial,  I shall remain thinking of myself as an atheist rather than than as an antitheist.

[SusanDoris]

I don't understand your gobbledegook.

BTW Vlad, why do you find the need to change your name so often, do you suffer from some sort of insecurity?

Why oh why do posters change their names without telling us clearly who they were before? I cannot work it out. What have you changed it from?