Came across this at an atheist's site (Atheist Jew): "Are you purposely trying to strip me of the last shred of dignity I have left?"
Here's the problem. Since we are not created in the image of God, but in the image of pond slime, there is no room for such a thing as dignity. It's a nonsensical category. Abstracts cannot rationally be supposed to exist. And intrinsic characteristics such as dignity, in a Darwinian world, are absurdities.
Atheists want the benefits of theism without buying in to the obligations. Atheists want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to shout their independence and wave their rebellious fists from the housetops proclaiming "there ain't no god!" while preserving the attributes of being human that only make sense and can only exist if they were created by God and, as humans, are somehow special, different from animals.
Does pond scum have dignity? Molecules? Earth worms? Ducks?
Think about it.
And rejoice that you are human!
15 comments:
Define dignity.
Sorry, but humans ARE animals. Humans were not created, but we evolved from earlier primate species.
Raytheist. I'm really glad to hear this. I'm a meat-eater, and I've been interested for sometime in sampling humans.
I presume you, being an animal like other animals I love to eat, would have no objection, in principle, to my desire to kill and eat you?
It would be helpful if you would post a sticker in your window -- atheist/animal, so I could by-pass theists who have a higher self-conception.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Where are you located, BTW?
Since you refuse to even define the central term of your own question (“Does pond scum have dignity? Molecules? Earth worms? Ducks?”), let me and Merriam-Webster help you:
dignity (n).
1: the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed
2a : high rank, office, or position b : a legal title of nobility or honor
3archaic : dignitary
4: formal reserve or seriousness of manner, appearance, or language
Definition 1: Since being worthy, honored, or esteemed are actions of the object, not the subject, I would say this easily applies to many members of the animal and plant kingdom. We honour the maple tree by putting its leaf on our flag. We deem the earthwork worthy as it tills our soil, we esteem the loon by putting it on our money.
Definition 2: There is no doubt that societal hierarchies exist in the animal kingdom, with extensive examples in both vertebrate species (cats, wildebeest) and invertebrates (ants).
Definition 3: archaic, but similar in effect to definition 2
Definition 4: I can think of several animals that present themselves with a certain formal countenance: the lion, the thoroughbred horse, the mallard duck. Herd for us to determine the amount of “formality” that exists in the languages of other animals, from the dance language of bees to the pheromone language of cycads or the vocal languages of most vertebrates. I would assume if formality is defined as sticking to stringent rules of proper language instead of using “slang”, then I would propose that most animal languages are much more strict than human ones, as they would require such for survival advantage.
So to answer your question, Yes. Many non-human things have dignity.
" Since being worthy, honored, or esteemed are actions of the object, not the subject, "
The first problem is the dictionary is unable to really define what humans understand as dignity -- it is a deeply-felt, intrinsic sense that goes beyond merely being worthy of honor etc. Words literally fail to adequate describe this indwelling, innate sense we call dignity.
And the only two possible explanations you have at your disposal for it are that a) dumb-as-a-rock darwinism produced this exquisite sensation/sense we understand as dignity, or, b) it is a human fabrication. If a) its an absurdity, and if b) it's ultimately illusionary, like right/wrong, good/bad, and evil.
In an atheistic, godless, universe, the very idea that something like dignity should exist, or emerge, is an irrational throwback to the era when people thought the universe was the product of Mind, and humans, in some way, special. We can no more possess the intrinsic character of dignity than can a pumpkin or a bit of moss, a potato, or a rock. Surely you should be among the first to recognize the logical implications of the Revolution.
Think it through.
* * *
Of course dignity actually exists. And it's not just a darwinian concoction; it is an authentic aspect of reality. As humans, we are able to apprehend it. Theists have a rational and sufficient explanation for it; atheists do not.
So, ditch any notions of there being such a thing as dignity. It's an atheistic absurdity.
So your entire argument hinges on the definition of a term you cannot define. And you implore ME to think it through?
Argument fail. That was easy.
Bring on #2, if your dignity can handle it.
You're trying to win arguments. I'm trying to assess reality. The fact that something cannot be perfectly defined does not mean it doesn't exist -- especially since dignity is something that is directly sensed by human beings.
Plus, you are dealing with the issue of meaning -- another exquisite abstract reality. In a godless, uncreated mindless universe, meaning is a just another absurdity.
At what point in the evolution of the cosmos from nothing did meaning come to exist? Did it pop into existence, or did it emerge from the slime?
Atheists live in an absurd, impossible universe filled with fundamental absurdities and contradictions.
"So your entire argument hinges on the definition of a term you cannot define."
No, it does not.
"Argument fail. That was easy."
No, it does not. And you're sounding adolescent again.
Thanks for the posts.
you propose that "dignity" is something humans have, but no other thing has, and therefore god exists. As silly as that argument is, I can't even get close to what you are saying until you define your terms. I looked for a common defintion of the word, and that isn;t good enough for you. This is not about winning an argument, it is about showing that you have no argument.
And with the strength of this non-argument, you weant me to accept the reality of your imaginary sky-friend? You will have to do a little better then invent semantic traps.
"you propose that "dignity" is something humans have, but no other thing has, and therefore god exists."
A re-statement of someone's argument is often a good measure of a person's state of mind.
That is not my argument.
My argument is that dignity as an abstract, non-material entity a) cannot actually exist if materialism is true, and b) that it is an absurd notion that there should be such a thing as dignity, or the lack thereof.
And you have not offered an argument to counter this. I've already told you what your two options are -- a) mindless, dumb evolution came up with this sense of dignity because it offers survival benefit, or b) it is a human concoction invented out of whole cloth, in other words, an ephemera, a fiction.
Atheists have no decent foundation or grounding for believing in something like the innate, indwelling sense of dignity.
"your imaginary sky-friend"
You've hit a new low. You can argue so articulately about science matters -- why do you stoop to caricature and cheap internet shots?
I hope you don't mind the intrusion, RkBall, but I'd like to respond to the argument (and without any references to "sky-friends.")
Let me first address the restatement of the argument you offered:
"...dignity as an abstract, non-material entity a) cannot actually exist if materialism is true, and b) that it is an absurd notion that there should be such a thing as dignity, or the lack thereof."
It seems tautological to me that a materialist would deny the existence of non-material entities. (I do think one can be an atheist without being a materialist, but let's set that aside.)
The question, I guess, is whether dignity is non-material in the relevant sense. If it's a feeling, then a materialist should only have trouble accounting for it to the extent he/she has trouble accounting for any feeling or sensation.
I could be wrong, but I think materialists can give plausible causal stories for most feelings. All of those stories would involve showing that particular sensations track actual states-of-the-world (hunger sensation tends to track an empty belly, etc.)
As I understand your argument, it's that the materialist cannot give a story like this one for the sensation of his own (or others') dignity. Dignity does not seem to track a state-of-the-world: we sense our own dignity regardless of physical state (empty belly, etc.) Dignity is simply felt, and its causal origin does not seem to lie in any particular world-state.
Is that about right? It's an interesting argument.
Terrence. Such a thoughtful post deserves a thoughtful response. Let me mull it over for a day or so. Please check back later.
Terrance -- see fresh posting
Post a Comment