Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jihadists must die, --- but our real enemies are the Qur’an and Bible.
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 316 of 375 (761073)
06-27-2015 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by Tangle
06-27-2015 3:18 AM


Tangle writes:
You're attempting to equate knowledge with belief; they're polar opposites.
Sure. My only point is that we all believe things subjectively where we can't have absolute knowledge. We can't know everything but we form beliefs. I'm going to watch a football games after I finish this. I believe I know who is going to win but I don't know it.
Tangle writes:
My world view is the same as yours and everyone else on the planet that is not either a religious fanatic or a psychopath - 'do as you would be done by'. It does not require a belief in a Christian god - of whatever flavour - or any fantasy of afterlives and miracle works to know that that is a good, moral life policy.
I have always said that all the world's major religions, (and probably the minor ones as well), have the Golden Rule or some form of it as part of their doctrine. The same can be said for secular groups as well. This indicates to me that there is a universal truth which would stem from a universal moral source.
The question is, how can we have a universal moral truth strictly as a result of an endless series of natural processes? If, as has been claimed on this forum, morality and more specifically altruism have simply evolved through natural processes over time then all morality is simply transitory. We are presumably still evolving so what we deem good or moral today might seem immoral and evil in the distant future. How can there be an ultimate good or evil if we are simply the result of mindless processes that are neither good or evil.
Tangle writes:
But we do know the truths about religions - they're man made. If you spend a couple of days researching the world's religions, beliefs and mythologies the conclusion is very, very, obvious. And we know the truths about miraculous happenings - they don't. Whether there's an ultimate deistic kind of god is, and always will be, uknown. But that is irrelevant as it tells us nothing about our fantasies of afterlives etc.
Of course religions are man made but that does not mean that they are false. Religion is about understanding the nature of God or whatever else we might call him. I understand the nature of God through the belief that His true nature was embodied by Jesus Christ.
What proof do you have that miraculous events can't happen. We don't normally experience them. However you might just look at life itself as being miraculous so who knows what else is possible.
Tangle writes:
Of course it matters! Not harming others and adding to the general wellbeing of humanity is demonstrably 'a good thing'. And it doesn't require belief in sky daddies, it's quantifiable and measureable.
How do you know it's a good thing. Western civilization would presumably be better off if we were to annihilate other societies so that they would not be using up the world's resources. We in the west could have uncontested access to those resources. Maybe that should be called good.
What is your basis for calling anything good or evil?
Edited by GDR, : typo

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Tangle, posted 06-27-2015 3:18 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by Tangle, posted 06-28-2015 4:10 AM GDR has replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 317 of 375 (761077)
06-27-2015 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by Tangle
06-27-2015 3:18 AM


Tangle writes:
You're attempting to equate knowledge with belief; they're polar opposites.
I wouldn't say they're opposites. There's a lot of overlap between belief and knowledge.
Edited by MrHambre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Tangle, posted 06-27-2015 3:18 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Tangle, posted 06-28-2015 6:37 AM MrHambre has replied

Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 318 of 375 (761078)
06-27-2015 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by ringo
06-27-2015 11:42 AM


Re: The End of the End of Faith
ringo
Conversion would be good but is not necessary to a religion the touts itself as a religion of peace.
The jihadists just have to start walking the peace loving talk of the mainstream Muslims.
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by ringo, posted 06-27-2015 11:42 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by ringo, posted 06-28-2015 2:12 PM Greatest I am has replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 319 of 375 (761087)
06-28-2015 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by GDR
06-27-2015 6:53 PM


GDR writes:
Sure. My only point is that we all believe things subjectively where we can't have absolute knowledge. We can't know everything but we form beliefs. I'm going to watch a football games after I finish this. I believe I know who is going to win but I don't know it.
But you know that the belief in your team winning is simply a hope that they will - just wishful thinking. If you insist on the analalogy, you also base your belief that they will win on real events in the past that you have verifyable evidence of - their playing record. If they had lost their previous twenty games, but you still believed they'd win the next one, you'd be delusional.
have always said that all the world's major religions, (and probably the minor ones as well), have the Golden Rule or some form of it as part of their doctrine. The same can be said for secular groups as well. This indicates to me that there is a universal truth
It's not a truth, but the desire to get along with others in a decent way is (almost) universal.
which would stem from a universal moral source.
Non sequitur and an unnecessary leap. We know now that 'morality' is an emotion - empathy actually - and that it has evolved to various levels in many animals living together. It's a necessary instinct for successful group survival.
If, as has been claimed on this forum, morality and more specifically altruism have simply evolved through natural processes over time then all morality is simply transitory.
That's another non sequitur. It actually means that morality is developmental, which is demonstrably true - we can track its changes throughout written history. The morality we have now is not the morality on 2,000 years ago. There is no reason to suppose that it won't continue to develop.
We are presumably still evolving so what we deem good or moral today might seem immoral and evil in the distant future.
Arguably we're not still evolving in the classical Darwinian sense in that we have evolved to the point of desiging out the mechanisms that force change - scarcity, competition and selection. (Although some minor traits are still changing.)
But our sense of morality is undoubtably changing as we develop better institutions and fairer societies. I'm sure we'll look back on this time in 500 years and think that our pursuit of economic growth at the expense of the climate and individual inequality was grossly immoral. And we'll look back at the primitive superstitious beliefs of the various world religions and recognise that they too were just another developmental step for an immature race.
How can there be an ultimate good or evil if we are simply the result of mindless processes that are neither good or evil.
Yet another non sequitur. Why should there be an ultimate good? We make the 'good' ourselves by making better societies to live in for everyone equally.
course religions are man made but that does not mean that they are false. Religion is about understanding the nature of God or whatever else we might call him. I understand the nature of God through the belief that His true nature was embodied by Jesus Christ.
Sorry GDR, you do not understand god any more than I do. This is just pulpit driven codswallop.
What proof do you have that miraculous events can't happen.
I have several hundred years of scientific study behind me that has failed to find evidence of a single miracle. Conversely, every time a miracle has been claimed, it has been shown to be either a natural process or a fraud. Show me a miracle and I'll believe. In fact I won't need to believe, I'll know. I don't need proof that they can't exist, if you claim that they do - show me one.
We don't normally experience them.
We don't ever experience them. Ever.
However you might just look at life itself as being miraculous so who knows what else is possible.
Pffnnrrr.....this is not an excuse to believe anything you like.
How do you know it's a good thing. Western civilization would presumably be better off if we were to annihilate other societies so that they would not be using up the world's resources. We in the west could have uncontested access to those resources. Maybe that should be called good.
Western society has already attempted to wipe out other societies many times and presumably thought it for the best - we look back on those events now with horror. We've become better people. Not all societies/religions think the same, some are still in that primitive mode. The direction of travel over the centuries is clear though, we are improving our institions and societies and when we do that, human wellbeing increases - which is what morality is.
What is your basis for calling anything good or evil?
As above.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by GDR, posted 06-27-2015 6:53 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by GDR, posted 06-28-2015 9:31 PM Tangle has replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 320 of 375 (761091)
06-28-2015 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by MrHambre
06-27-2015 7:53 PM


MrH writes:
There's a lot of overlap between belief and knowledge.
I don't see it - if we have knowledge about something we don't need belief. Belief only exists in the absense of knowledge. (Or the denial of knowledge.)

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by MrHambre, posted 06-27-2015 7:53 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by MrHambre, posted 06-28-2015 10:21 AM Tangle has replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 321 of 375 (761102)
06-28-2015 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 320 by Tangle
06-28-2015 6:37 AM


I don't see it - if we have knowledge about something we don't need belief. Belief only exists in the absense of knowledge. (Or the denial of knowledge.)
Philosophically speaking, all we have are beliefs. It's the extent of justification that allows us to characterize a body of beliefs as knowledge.
In the atheist blogosphere, the word 'belief' has a stigma that it doesn't deserve. Even when we're talking about scientific matters, the fact that we amateurs profess 'knowledge' of things that we only understand on an anecdotal level makes it nearly indistinguishable from revealed wisdom. I know it rankles us as freethinkers to be reminded that we justify the vast majority of our knowledge not through evidence, but simply by assuming (with good reason) that the consensus position of the scientific industry is probably correct. It's always helpful to remember how many blind men are standing between us and the alleged elephant, that's all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Tangle, posted 06-28-2015 6:37 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by Tangle, posted 06-28-2015 11:59 AM MrHambre has not replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 322 of 375 (761108)
06-28-2015 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by MrHambre
06-28-2015 10:21 AM


Mr.H writes:
Philosophically speaking, all we have are beliefs.
All such discussions resolve to 'what do you mean by mean?' Monty Python pseudo-philo nonsense. We know things about our world and we guess about what we don't - then attempt to test it. Sometimes our knowledge turns out to be partial or even wrong, but as soon as we find that out it increases knowledge. Philosophy's attempts to produce knowledge just by thinking hard about it has proven to be strictly limited and/or non-useful.
In the atheist blogosphere, the word 'belief' has a stigma that it doesn't deserve.
Belief has exactly the stigma it deserves - it's been responsible for most of the worst events in human history and I don't mean just religious beliefs.
Even when we're talking about scientific matters, the fact that we amateurs profess 'knowledge' of things that we only understand on an anecdotal level makes it nearly indistinguishable from revealed wisdom.
Oh come on, that's pure cobblers. Knowledge/facts are independent of popular wisdom, just because I don't understand how a computer's chip functions but can talk about it as if i did, doesn't negate the real underlying information. All the things we think we know can ultimately be tested by the doubter - given the brain power and the application. For those who lack both, which is most of us on most subjects, we rely on the accumulated wisdom of generations. That is not a belief issue, it's a trust issue and the trust is based on prior evidence and the practical outputs from the knowledge gained. I don't need to believe that electricity makes my iMac work.
I know it rankles us as freethinkers to be reminded that we justify the vast majority of our knowledge not through evidence, but simply by assuming (with good reason) that the consensus position of the scientific industry is probably correct. It's always helpful to remember how many blind men are standing between us and the alleged elephant, that's all.
It doesn't rankle in the slightest. The consensus position on science being probably correct is just that - the best we have. That's a million miles distant from an irrational belief in the healing powers of pyramids or deities that answer prayers if you grovel enough.
The difference between knowledge derived from empirical study and belief derived from wishful thinking, superstition and mythology needs to be defended. If we allow it to get blurred for whatever compromising reason, we risk losing the progress we've made.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by MrHambre, posted 06-28-2015 10:21 AM MrHambre has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 323 of 375 (761117)
06-28-2015 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by Greatest I am
06-27-2015 8:06 PM


Re: The End of the End of Faith
Greatest I am writes:
The jihadists just have to start walking the peace loving talk of the mainstream Muslims.
So you want jihadists to magically convert to peace-loving mainstream Muslims. That's about as practical as asking elephants to convert to butterflies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Greatest I am, posted 06-27-2015 8:06 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Greatest I am, posted 06-28-2015 2:29 PM ringo has replied

Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 324 of 375 (761121)
06-28-2015 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by ringo
06-28-2015 2:12 PM


Re: The End of the End of Faith
ringo
You seem convinced that the only way is to kill them off.
Magic is not a part of my usual vocabulary.
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by ringo, posted 06-28-2015 2:12 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by ringo, posted 06-28-2015 2:53 PM Greatest I am has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 325 of 375 (761127)
06-28-2015 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by Greatest I am
06-28-2015 2:29 PM


Re: The End of the End of Faith
Greatest I am writes:
You seem convinced that the only way is to kill them off.
You don't seem to be paying attention. I've said that YOUR idea of killing them off won't work and YOUR idea of asking them to magically switch sides won't work - in other words, YOU have no workable solution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Greatest I am, posted 06-28-2015 2:29 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Greatest I am, posted 06-28-2015 7:18 PM ringo has replied

Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 326 of 375 (761144)
06-28-2015 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by ringo
06-28-2015 2:53 PM


Re: The End of the End of Faith
Assumption not based on facts or thought.
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by ringo, posted 06-28-2015 2:53 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by ringo, posted 06-29-2015 11:48 AM Greatest I am has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 327 of 375 (761158)
06-28-2015 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by Tangle
06-28-2015 4:10 AM


Tangle writes:
But you know that the belief in your team winning is simply a hope that they will - just wishful thinking. If you insist on the analalogy, you also base your belief that they will win on real events in the past that you have verifyable evidence of - their playing record. If they had lost their previous twenty games, but you still believed they'd win the next one, you'd be delusional.
Well no. There are lots of times that I hope my team will win but my belief is my team will lose. My only point is that we all have beliefs based on what we know, but we don't have absolute knowledge.
GDR writes:
have always said that all the world's major religions, (and probably the minor ones as well), have the Golden Rule or some form of it as part of their doctrine. The same can be said for secular groups as well. This indicates to me that there is a universal truth
Tangle writes:
It's not a truth, but the desire to get along with others in a decent way is (almost) universal.
Well sure. I want to get along with people I have contact with certainly. As individuals we have no need to get along with people in the third world, and as a matter of fact, as I said earlier our society would be better off without them using up the world's resources. However, many of us still spend time and money to improve their lives.
Tangle writes:
Non sequitur and an unnecessary leap. We know now that 'morality' is an emotion - empathy actually - and that it has evolved to various levels in many animals living together. It's a necessary instinct for successful group survival.
Fine, but I contend that it isn't reasonable to have evolved from an infinite series of non-intelligent, non-moral processes. You throw around the word "know" in that sentence. That is actually your belief. Whatever happened to "survival of the fittest"? Why do people do the "right" thing when it clearly isn't in their best interest?
Tangle writes:
That's another non sequitur. It actually means that morality is developmental, which is demonstrably true - we can track its changes throughout written history. The morality we have now is not the morality on 2,000 years ago. There is no reason to suppose that it won't continue to develop.
Sure, but again, that tells us nothing about whether or not there is an intelligent and moral root cause or if we evolved strictly from non-intelligent, non-moral processes. You are simply expressing your subjective conclusion or in other words your belief.
Tangle writes:
But our sense of morality is undoubtably changing as we develop better institutions and fairer societies. I'm sure we'll look back on this time in 500 years and think that our pursuit of economic growth at the expense of the climate and individual inequality was grossly immoral.
Let's hope you're right.
Tangle writes:
And we'll look back at the primitive superstitious beliefs of the various world religions and recognise that they too were just another developmental step for an immature race.
That's your belief. It is my belief that we'll look back and wonder how on earth anyone could believe sentient beings with an understanding of morality could have resulted from mindless particles regardless of the process. However, I do believe that the world religions will continue to evolve through greater understanding.
GDR writes:
course religions are man made but that does not mean that they are false. Religion is about understanding the nature of God or whatever else we might call him. I understand the nature of God through the belief that His true nature was embodied by Jesus Christ.
Tangle writes:
Sorry GDR, you do not understand god any more than I do. This is just pulpit driven codswallop.
That is your belief. I don't say that I know that my view is correct. It is my belief.
GDR writes:
What is your basis for calling anything good or evil?
Tangle writes:
As above.
Well, you didn't really answer the question. If we are simply the result of an infinite regression of non-intelligent, non-moral natural processes that have evolved from non-intelligent, non-moral particles, (without even dealing with the question of why those particles were there in the first place), then why should we trust any conclusion we come to? Your argument is simply that it seems to work.
I assume that you would claim that we are not teleological beings in the sense of there being an ultimate purpose to existence. If this is the case then why should I, or anyone else spend time or money on someone that I will never meet in poor circumstances half way around the world. It is my BELIEF that we are here for a purpose, which is to make this world a better place for everyone and every living thing, not for my benefit but simply because I believe that it is the right thing to do. (Of course, I am a long way from fulfilling that purpose but hopefully I am making progress.)
If in the end if it is all futile and when this world disappears nothing that has happened matters then why bother. Don't take this as an argument that atheists can't choose the right thing or that atheists can't adhere to the Christian ideal better than I do. It is simply my belief that either the atheist or myself can and often do choose the right thing because the first cause for life was both intelligent and moral.
Tangle writes:
Western society has already attempted to wipe out other societies many times and presumably thought it for the best - we look back on those events now with horror. We've become better people. Not all societies/religions think the same, some are still in that primitive mode. The direction of travel over the centuries is clear though, we are improving our institions and societies and when we do that, human wellbeing increases - which is what morality is.
On that we agree. Thanks be to God.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Tangle, posted 06-28-2015 4:10 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by Tangle, posted 06-29-2015 4:04 AM GDR has replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 328 of 375 (761164)
06-29-2015 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 327 by GDR
06-28-2015 9:31 PM


GDR writes:
Well no. There are lots of times that I hope my team will win but my belief is my team will lose. My only point is that we all have beliefs based on what we know, but we don't have absolute knowledge.
In any case, your belief is based on real world evidence - it's knowledge of their ability evidenced by their past performance and that of their opponents that informs your belief that they'll lose. It's not equivalent to a belief in supernatural activity. That kind of belief, the type you are talking about should have a capital B.
Fine, but I contend that it isn't reasonable to have evolved from an infinite series of non-intelligent, non-moral processes.
You keep using this argument from incredulity as if you've never heard all the supporting evidence for it. You say it even though you accept evolution. You accept that these same 'mindless molecules' as your repeatedly say as though it has some negative weight, have created all the life forms on earth. But for some reason you can't accept that the same process can create the means by which groups of organisms can co-operate. Why is that?
My own take on it is because your religious beliefs require the emotion of empathy to be god given and incapable of emerging naturally in the way all other emotions have. But if you accept the rest of evolution - for example that it can create bonds in many orders of animanls that allow them to co-operate to raise a family and defend the newborn against attack - what is so special about empathy that make it incapable of evolving? Do you deny that this emotion is also found in other primates?
You throw around the word "know" in that sentence. That is actually your belief.
But it's not a belief we DO know that evolution created all the organisms on earth and all their traits and behaviours - including Homo. It is simply not rational to say that evolution could create everything else we see, but not that one thing.
Whatever happened to "survival of the fittest"? Why do people do the "right" thing when it clearly isn't in their best interests
Altruism has been explained to you several times before, you simply ignore it as though it hasn't. Do I need to do it again?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by GDR, posted 06-28-2015 9:31 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by GDR, posted 06-29-2015 2:33 PM Tangle has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 329 of 375 (761180)
06-29-2015 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by Greatest I am
06-28-2015 7:18 PM


Re: The End of the End of Faith
Greatest I am writes:
Assumption not based on facts or thought.
On the contrary, we know that killing jihadists doesn't discourage jihadists because they love martyrdom - they want to die for their cause. And we also know that they aren't going to miraculously become good little girls and boys on your say-so because they would have already done that. You have no solution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Greatest I am, posted 06-28-2015 7:18 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Greatest I am, posted 06-29-2015 12:12 PM ringo has replied

Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 330 of 375 (761182)
06-29-2015 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by ringo
06-29-2015 11:48 AM


Re: The End of the End of Faith
Again. Not my say so but the say so of their more left leaning peers.
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by ringo, posted 06-29-2015 11:48 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by ringo, posted 06-29-2015 12:25 PM Greatest I am has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024