Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 301 of 477 (559247)
05-07-2010 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Flyer75
05-07-2010 10:35 AM


You are right on the talking snake thing. BUT, if one can prove that things in the NT are true are other parts of the OT that might seem stretchy by natural law standards, then one can believe other parts of the Bible where we just don't have the proof.
(1) Should I also apply this same reasoning to classical works of Chinese history ... or to the works of Herodotus ... or of Geoffrey of Monmouth ... or Homer?
(2) You suggest extrapolating from the reliability of some parts of the Bible to "other parts ... where we just have no proof". But what about parts of the Bible where we have proof to the contrary, such as the Flood myth?
By analogy, if you had an informant who had always proved reliable in the past, then you might be inclined to believe him if he told you he'd witnessed the murder of Jimmy Hoffa in 1975. But you'd just laugh at him if he started telling you how he'd witnessed the murder of Barack Obama in 2009, however reliable he'd proved to be on other subjects.
Even if he made a claim not actually contrary to observation, you would also be dubious about a supernatural claim. Suppose you had an otherwise reliable informant, whose stories had checked out perfectly on every other occasion, who told you that I'd killed someone using black magic. Now, although you of course do not rule out the existence of the supernatural a priori, how convinced would you be by his claim? How ready would you be to take it to court?
And you're shaking your head about the origin of life question....prove it to me then. Can you? With evolution...prove it. You cannot. You will do exactly as I am doing. You will use scientific explanations that we DO KNOW for sure about certain things and extrapolate them to the past and say, "it's logical that this started somehow" but you can't prove it directly.
Could you be more coherent?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Flyer75, posted 05-07-2010 10:35 AM Flyer75 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 302 of 477 (559248)
05-07-2010 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by nwr
05-07-2010 10:41 AM


Re: Hypothesis, Prediction, Observations
I am inclined to disagree with that.
It is not as if the world were divided into two fixed realms, the natural and the supernatural, and that thus far we only have evidence of the natural. Rather, it that whenever there is evidence, we call that natural, and we relegate the term "supernatural" for that for which there is no evidence.
No, I don't think so. The supernatural is that which supervenes the regular laws of nature. Turning water into wine, walking on water, raising the dead, and so forth, would in fact be supernatural --- they'd only be natural if everyone could do it by following the correct procedures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by nwr, posted 05-07-2010 10:41 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 303 of 477 (559249)
05-07-2010 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Flyer75
05-07-2010 10:44 AM


Yes, you do, but that admissible evidence could be as simple as a "witness" that you get to testify that is either confused in what they saw or is completely lying to begin with.
I didn't say that all admissible evidence is true; I just said that without any admissible evidence you would not have a case you could take to court in the first place.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Flyer75, posted 05-07-2010 10:44 AM Flyer75 has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 304 of 477 (559382)
05-08-2010 11:23 PM


quote:
1. Both atheists and theists will agree that morality is surely a major part in human life.
dw1 writes:
Agreed. However, in general atheists have a much healthier and more realistic view of morality than do theists. Atheists will see morality as necessary for people to get along with each other and to work together within a society and they will see moral breaches as being bad because they adversely affect ourselves, other people, and even society itself, which would in turn adversely affect ourselves and other people. Barring those who correctly understand the importance of morality despite their religious training, theists will only see the effects on themselves and on others vaguely, if at all, but rather will see morality as strictly involving their relationship with their god and the only consequences of immorality would involve their own soul and their chances in the afterlife.
May I say the word? Bullshit!
Sorry, I had to.
Your argument falls at the outset because:
1. You're applying a human standard to judge human morality. And since the bases,standards, and versions of human morality are so diverse and inter-conflicting, there can be no one body of moral codes that seats itself in the king's throne--which also is a HUMAN standard!
2. You're distinguishing between atheist morality and theist morality! There is no such difference. The only difference between the two views is that we theists are accountable to God for our morality/immorality.
According to your own words,-- "Barring those who correctly understand the importance of morality despite their religious training, theists will only see the effects on themselves and on others vaguely, if at all, but rather will see morality as strictly involving their relationship with their god and the only consequences of immorality would involve their own soul and their chances in the afterlife."----, theist morality is different from atheist morality in that it is centered around the theist himself/the theist's God and/or the relationship between the two! Your view is in stark contrast with reality. To quote the Bible itself, the two greatest commandments of God on which all other commandments depend are:
Matthew 22:37-40 (New International Version)
37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
And so you see you really are making a huge blunder in saying that theists' version of morality, (and I'm going to talk on behalf of Christianity since I'm a Christian) is concentrated around self. Whatever reality may reflect, the rule stays the same. And, I'm agreeing with you that a lot of Christians do not "live in brotherhood" with others for selfish reasons but that's hardly a reason to trash their moral code itself. That's our imperfectness right there.
On the flip side, you contend that atheists embrace a "healthier" and more "realistic" view or morality when compared with theists. And this helps them "get along with each other" better. After all--isn't that what you guys define morality as? Getting along with each other? This argument falls terribly at the outset for its has no sound basis to begin with! Let me ask you a few questions:
1. What is or is there a universal moral code that all atheists agree on?
2. Is there accountability involved?
3. Is there an authority that all atheists are subject to?
Without an external source to answer to, it doesn't matter how moral you are! Because you can be moral in your own eyes and I can be in my eyes. You see? That's giving yourself the ticket to do whatever is moral is your own eyes.
The claim that atheists live healthier and realistic moral lives or at least, embrace a moral code with said qualifiers is outright stupid. It is plagued by subjectivity! Healthy and realistic with respect to what?! I mean, ???
This sentence is a bit ambiguous. I will assume that you mean that within a given population, some people will give precedence to said discernment and the rest will not, and that the former group is larger than the latter.
OK, yeah. After all, if most of the people in a society didn't care about good-vs-evil (GvE), right-from-wrong (RfW), then that society would be very sorry shape to the detriment of all.
Yes, you got me right.
Irrelevent. Though atheists are gaining, but that is also irrelevent. As for the implication that theists are the ones caring more about GvE/RfW, that is preposterous (AKA, "BS"). A great many atheists are very much concerned with matters of GvE and RfW, as well as with social justice and, in the USA, with the preservation of the Constitution and of our constitutionally-guaranteed liberties, for all citizens' sake, not just for our own. Most of the exceptions, atheists who are not concerned with GvE/RfW, tend to be influenced by theistic teachings and attitudes (eg, "When I was a Christian I was taught that if I didn't believe in God then I'd be completely free to misbehave however I wanted, so ... ").
For argument's sake, I will grant to you (even though this is not in line with reality) that atheists stand on the same level as theists in their focus on living moral lives a.k.a, getting along with each other. Okay. Agreed, for argument's sake that is. It doesn't MATTER! Logically speaking, the (unreasonable) claim that atheists are on the same page (or a level higher) makes no difference in life because again, what one person thinks is moral another may think immoral...they cancel out each other? The net effect of not following a absolute moral code is chaos! What we think may help two people get along with each other may be extremely detrimental to one of them and beneficial to another and such situations beg the need for a absolute code which you HAVE to follow irrespective of whether it does "benefits" you or not. You see the net effect here, is order. Let's look at a very simplistic example. Two sisters are fighting over a toy. The older sister is asked by her parents to give it up for the younger one. Be unselfish and kind, they say. Without authority (in this case, the parents), the girl has no REASON to give up the toy! Human beings are not intrinsically others oriented, as your evolutionary theory will also agree. So the older sister's natural instinct is to fight for her own rights. The same is the case with adults. Granted, we are on a different level on the scale of maturity, as in we UNDERSTAND and evaluate better than kids..but our moral instincts remain untouched. My point here is, with no moral authority no matter how "moral" you try to be, it doesn't matter and that's because you are your own judge. See?
OTOH, far too many theists are not really concerned about GvE/RfW, but rather are only concerned about abitrary rules that they believe they must follow in order to order to escape their god's wrath and punishment -- no, that is quite obviously not the same thing. Plus, most of the pressure and efforts directed against the Constitution and our constitutionally-guaranteed liberties are from theists, because they believe their religion requires it of them.
Because, if you let things be as they are with no standards, you will eventually end up in chaos!
Since you brought up liberties, lets look at gay rights for example. You will agree that the gay movement has not always been as energetic and outspoken as it is today. It is a ramification of the Post-modern era we live in. "You can be whatever you want to be, you are your own master." Post-Modernism is a mood. It is passing. And so are its elements. And once this mood has passed, there might come up another movement that demands certain "rights" for people. Can we then say, that people's morality a.k.a "ways to get along with each other" are also subject to the mood of the day? Certainly! And therein lies the problem.
As discussed directly above, atheists don't have to obsess over questions of dogma and so simply function as normal moral individuals without having to give it much conscious thought. So then, yes, they do have more time think about other things. It's kind of like dancing. Every dance has a basic rhythm and a basic step (except for some, like West Coast Swing, which has several basic steps), plus several moves/steps, lead-and-follow, turns, navigating about the floor in such a manner as to avoid collisions, etc. Actually, it's the leader who has the most to think about; in a salsa teacher's description of Beginner's Hell, she lists 25 things that the leader must do at a minimum, whereas the follow only has 4 things in her list. When you begin, you have 1000 things you have to think about all the time, all at once. But then you learn a few things well enough to no longer have to think about them -- a common term for that is "muscle memory" -- so now you only have 997 things to think about. Then 990, then 940, etc, until you have so much stored in "muscle memory" that you are free to think about so much more. One saying among students is that first come the feet, then the hands, then the body, then finally the styling and musicality. In the beginning you have to work so hard to get the feet and basic rhythm working that you can't even begin to think about arm work or styling or cues in the music. It's only after you can free you mind of the mundane basic things that you free yourself to think about the more interesting parts of dancing. Indeed, it gets to a point where if you start thinking about the basic things you're doing, it completely messes up your dancing -- happens a lot in classes when we review the basics, as every dancer must do.
That was a very neat example! There's something to learn from everything
However, it is, unfortunately, invalid in our conversation. The reason being, like it or not--we are NEVER going to master even the most basic concepts of morality (like dancers master feet movements and basic rhythms before getting to the more complex movements of hands, musicality etc)! In that sense, muscle memory of basic moral concepts like "love one another", "treat one another with respect", "do to others as you would have done to yourself" is essentially non-existent. If you were to ask a theist, he will tell you that morality is a everyday battle. Many times people know exactly what they should be doing in a situation but they automatically are prone to the exact opposite thing because such is our intrinsically selfish nature! And this exactly what the Bible teaches:
Rom 7:
14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to dothis I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to Godthrough Jesus Christ our Lord!
You might be able to program yourself with moral software. But affecting it in real life is inevitably a constant battle, not a happy dance.
The theists of whom you speak, the ones obsessing all the time over GvE/RfW, are tying up their minds with a lot of extraneous stuff so that, of course, they don't have much time or energy to think about the more interesting parts of life. Whereas atheists, simply living their lives morally by letting their "moral muscle memory" do its job, don't have to waste their minds or energy with useless dogma and thus are indeed free to think about and explore the more interesting parts of life.
If what you say is true, then why do I not see people thronging to become atheists?! By and large the atheist community I've encountered have de-converted from some form of theism due to complete disgust or complete arrogance. Not by any means, because they found atheism to be life-affirming. For them it was like choosing between the lesser of the two evils. Your words are sugar-coated! I have a hindu friend who I correspond with on somewhat regular basis. He lives in India. His family is a devout, traditional Brahmin family. He was the most staunch hindu I ever knew. Recently, he told me he converted (or de-converted?) to atheism since the past two years. I asked him why. And his words were, "God never answers my prayers, never gives me what I sincerely ask him for, never rewards my efforts and now its my turn to show him what I can do" To him, converting to atheism was "taking revenge" so to speak, against a unfavorable deity! I understand from his words that he finds nothing about atheism life-affirming that he should be drawn to it because of its intrinsic moral merit, instead it's a worldview that conveniently exempts him from submitting to an unfavorable deity.
Agreed. However, you ignore the fact that no universal moral code exists.
On what basis do you so dogmatically rule this out? I mean,???
Of course. We are a social species. Our success, both in individual, social, and species survival and in almost all other human endeavors, depends on our ability to work together in a society. Morality is key to that ability, as well as to keeping those societies intact, healthy, and functional.
Well, so is reproduction.
The more universal the laws governing reproduction and familial relationships, the better the scope for societal order! Likewise, the more universal the moral code, the better the scope for societal order!
The only reason one would not strive to be moral is because of mental/social illness and/or acceptance of religious dogma that teaches that they must not be moral. Such as Christianity teaches and preaches about morality being solely dependent on the existence of their god, even to the point that non-believers are supposed to become immoral. Such a foolish doctrine!
Uhhh...you missed out the main reason people strive not to be moral. And that's selfishness.
Christianity does not teach not to be moral. And you guys claim to have a deep understanding of the Scripture? I mean, really??? What exactly are you referring to here? If you have a objective reason, I will listen to it. If you are making a vague, baseless assertion, I'm forced to be defensive.
Moral actions (real moral actions, not just arbitrary rules), AKA "doing right", tend to have consequences that are beneficial, even if not for all parties
Let's dissect your logic here.
Beneficial for whom? Everybody? Surely not all moral actions are beneficial to everybody. And this is why someone goes home unhappy. Net effect? Chaos! If you don't give the unhappy guy a substantial reason to give up his right, then he doesn't have a reason to be kind a second time in another situation. On the other hand, if the reason you give him is"you've got to be kind and get along with your friends", he's gonna shoot back with "we'll why can't the opposite party be kind to me?!" It is in our nature to fight for ourselves and our rights! The knowledge that we need to get along with each other is just knowledge, its not a reason. Atleast not a strong enough reason.
So what does an atheist do after having done wrong? The damage has been done, but he should feel the need to try to repair that damage. Apologies would be forthcoming. At the very least, his conscience would bother him and he would at least try to learn from his mistake and try to a not do that again.
Oookay. Why does he feel the need to repair the damage? Why does he feel the need to reconcile with his friend? Why offer an apology? I'm asking for straight answers.
What does a theist do? According to doctrine, all he needs to do is to ask his god for forgiveness and then everything is alright once more. But is it really? The damage has been done and no attempt has been made to try to repair the damage, nor even to offer an apology, nor to try to learn from that mistake.
Okay, are you trying to be humorous?! Because, either that was intended as comic relief or was a demonstration of complete immaturity. I, I can't take that seriously. I mean, ??
Every sin a Christian commits with the complete knowledge of going against God's command and willingness to go against it, will severely be punished. God never lets sin go. The fact that God says I have removed your sins from you as far as the east is from the west doesn't mean that the sinner goes unpunished. He receives due punishment. It means that those sins, God will not count as a reason to withdraw the sinner's salvation. The earthly repercussions of sin remain intact! I can show you verses where God gives repentance and apology precedence over worshiping Himself! And you talk as though God is a narcissist!
Cleaned up that formatting a bit for you.
OK. Bullshit! There are more than just your "two possible ways". This is nothing more than a False Dilemma, which is a deceptive practice employed so much by Christians and creationists that it actually forms the fundamental basis of "creation science", known there as their "two-model approach". You take an issue or question which has several different answers and you ignore all of those answers except for two which you then force your victim ... er, the audience to choose between. Of course, you make one of the choices totally unacceptable so that you then force your victim ... er, -- frak it! victim, because that's what he is -- to accept the answer you choose. And that is bullshit! But then that is the Christianity that we observe being practiced far too much.
From that Wikipedia article:
quote:False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice ("If you are not with us, you are against us.") But the fallacy can arise simply by accidental omissionpossibly through a form of wishful thinking or ignorancerather than by deliberate deception ("I thought we were friends, but all my friends were at my apartment last night and you weren't there.")
When two alternatives are presented, they are often, though not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities. This can lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive, even though they need not be. Furthermore, the options are typically presented as being collectively exhaustive, in which case the fallacy can be overcome, or at least weakened, by considering other possibilities, or perhaps by considering a whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy logic.
What about the choice to live one's life morally with submitting an arbitrary authority (your #2)? Or live one's life actively exploring moral issues, including the exploration and comparing of a variety of moral codes? Get 100 atheists together and you will most likely get 100 different answers, none of which would be your #2 and only a few of your #1. This choice that you offer us is completely and utterly false.
It is at this point that your attempted argument starts to unravel.
Hold it right there. There are only two options. All other supposed intermediates of the spectrum are invalid.
Disagree with me? Okay. Let's introduce option 3, shall we? : Live your moral life exploring a wide range of moral views and incorporate the best elements form each into into a customized view of your own.
Whats the point??? 100 atheists are going to have 100 moral views. And disagreements around bound to happen! The ramifications of having multiple moral codes are disastrous because again, when disagreements arise, there is no supreme authority to submit to! And therefore ideological agendas prevail.
quote:
6. The absolute, universal moral code is the moral Code of God.
Now you're piling bullshit upon bullshit and your entire line of reasoning completely falls apart.
There's a famous single-frame cartoon of two scientists standing in front of a chalk-board covered with formulas on the left side (the initial equations) and on the right (the conclusions) and in the middle is blank except for the words, "a miracle happens". The one scientist tells the other whose work this is, "I think that part needs more work."
Just exactly how did you get from #5 to #6? If any absolute universal moral code were to exist (which it doesn't), whatever makes you think that it would be "the moral Code of God", which we recognize as you saying it's what's contained in the Bible? Simply your dogma and absolutely nothing else. That is what makes this bullshit upon bullshit. You need to give your complete reasoning that took you from #5 (which is already bullshit) to #6.
The moral code given in the Bible is not absolute nor universal. Rather, it was the relative moral code of one ancient society, which was then codified in writing and then much later accepted piecemeal by other societies. It's not "the moral Code of God", but rather yet another moral code created by a society of Man, just like all the others.
I don't know why certain things that are so obvious to some people are completely counter-intuitive to others. If man cannot form a universal, absolute moral code and follow it, then who can and must form one? Obviously, a higher moral authority! And that whom we theists call God. And that's exactly the higher moral authority atheists fail to acknowledge EVEN though they clearly see need the for said moral standard.
Now, why do I believe that there exists such a code/standard? What Dr A said to me was completely reasonable: The need for a universal, absolute moral code doesn't imply the existence of said moral code. Being hungry does not prove that I have bread.
And I will respond to this in my next post...time will not permit me now.

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Apothecus, posted 05-09-2010 10:09 PM Pauline has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 305 of 477 (559383)
05-08-2010 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by dwise1
05-07-2010 3:20 AM


Re: Half a circle... is 180 degrees
First, if that message was intended to be a reply to me, then why were you instead replying to Dr. A?
Sorry, I don't know how that happened. But believe me, that post was totally meant for you.
And please explain what part of "do not tie your shoe in a watermelon patch" that you do not understand. If you are not actually trying to pull a bait-and-switch, then isn't it also in your interest to not give the appearance of pulling one?
I am least bothered about how much you regard or disregard the scientific method in your personal or professional life. Least. ALL I'm concerned about right now is that you realize its invalidity as means to study the supernatural. Please stop you nonsensical accusations. Would you like to have a discussion or not?
Was he replying to your other statements that the scientific method is useless in dealing with the supernatural? No, he was not. Instead, he was replying to your new statement that it's useless for anything. I came along only recently, but he's been part of the discussion all along. By not stating what you intended, you generated confusion. Now, it's in creationists' interest to generate confusion, but if you are interested in honest discussion then you do not want to generate confusion, but rather to eliminate confusion. That is what you want, right?
So, should you have to include that "in dealing with the supernatural" qualifier "another 200,000 hundred times" as per your little tantrum? No, of course not! You only need to include it every time you repeat that statement! In order to avoid causing confusion. Such as the confusion that you had caused Dr. Adequate.
I take FULL responsibility for the error in my writing. And I do take responsibility for the alleged confusion it caused. However, if you go back and read the thread, a user called nwr points out to Dr A that what I really meant was "that the scientific method was useless in studying the supernatural" in this instance also , as I meant with EVERY other instance of my using said sentence. Some people choose to trust, some people people choose to allege. You decide which you want to be. I am grateful to nwr for giving me the benefit of the doubt. It shows his/her maturity.
It isn't my problem that Dr A ignored every other instance when I did use the "tu study the supernatual" qualifier and particularly highlight the one time I didn't. Now, even I could say that he must have had some hidden agenda in doing that. But I won't. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and treat him as though he really was confused, and therefore clear the ambiguity on my part.
I don't think that you see the problem, Doc.
I forget Dr. A's religious history, but a lot of atheists used to be theists. They bought completely into all the made-up stuff that religion is based on and that religion continues to dream up. They grew out of it, often through a long gut-wretching process of discovering that none of what they used to believe is true.
Now you're trying to drag them back into theism. Well, you're going to need to offer some damned good reasons for them to drink that kool-aid again! Which is something that you have not offered and that you resist trying to offer.
Are you starting to see the problem, Doc?
Ohh, brother! Far from it. I can never, even in my wildest dreams and fantasies, convince you of anything I believe in. Trust me, I'm not here to convert you.
All I'm saying, and what you're missing, is that Dr A and his atheist friends here are looking for God in the wrong place. Science. Evidence. Numbers. Facts. Figures. Archaeological sites. Statistics. Controlled experiments. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. He's not there!! And I came here to tell you that. That's all! I'm not going to force you to "drink the cool-aid"!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by dwise1, posted 05-07-2010 3:20 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2010 1:05 AM Pauline has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 306 of 477 (559384)
05-08-2010 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Dr Adequate
05-07-2010 8:54 AM


Re: Hypothesis, Prediction, Observations
Like Sagan's dragon. And unlike the deity described in the Bible.
There's no reason a priori why we can't observe the effects of the supernatural. We can perfectly well imagine a god who constantly sent squads of angels to Earth to go about singing his praises and smiting wrongdoers. We'd notice.
The fact that we live in a universe in which there is no evidence of a god is, then, not because a god is a sort of thing for which there should necessarily be no evidence. Rather, this observation is consistent with the hypothesis that we live in a universe without a god
Well, if we did see angels flying around we would befriend and study them. And if they roamed frequently enough 9as you propose), we'd then reduce them from "supernatural" status to natural status. Supernatural, by definition, goes against natural laws; and therefore is exclusively rare or completely invisible. Agree or not, DA? Anything observable, measurable, and quantifiable by humans through reason and senses is natural, no?
Oh yes there is. There's scope for the hypothesis that there is no god, just as our failure to observe unicorns leaves ample scope for the hypothesis that there are no unicorns.
Um, how do you test your hypothesis, sir?
You know???
Yes. Prediction: we will never make any observations supporting the existence of a god.
We have never made any observations that disprove the existence of God...unless we have lied to ourselves.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-07-2010 8:54 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2010 1:54 AM Pauline has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 307 of 477 (559385)
05-08-2010 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Woodsy
05-07-2010 6:36 AM


Re: Why Not Answer Woodsy's Question?
dw1 writes:
But did you answer Woodsy's simple, direct, and utterly necessary question? No, you did not. You did not even start to answer it. Made absolutely no attempt to answer it. Instead, you redirected our attention away from that question with an entirely unrelated argument. Why didn't you just answer his question? Or at the very least acknowledge it and offer some kind of explanation why you can't answer it ... or explicitly refuse to answer it with some semblance of an explanation as to why?
No, you stated flat-out that you had something, "other, and more relevant, ways to scrutinize {the supernatural}", and then you completely avoided presenting any further information about those "ways". Like far too many other Christians before you have repeatedly done far too many times. Like creationists will go on and on about all this evidence they have for creation and yet they consistently refuse to present it, making it glaringly obvious that they have no such evidence and that they know it yet persist in falsely claiming that such evidence does exist.
Is that your case? That you really don't have any "other, and more relevant, ways to scrutinize {the supernatural}"? Well then why did you falsely claim that you do? Does this "absolute, universal moral code" of yours, which we know full well prohibits telling falsehoods, not apply in all cases and especially not when a Christian chooses to violate it? How "absolute" is that?
DS writes:
Philosophy! Metaphysics, Ethics, Logic, Philosophy of religion. If you want to categorize my argument into one of these, that's ethics. Dealing with morality!
Woodsy writes:
Would you care to show us some examples from these kinds of studies that confirm the existence of the supernatural or, assuming that it does exist, demonstrate its properties?
Start a new thread on it. Or please wait until I have the time to do so...which I'm guessing I would need a couple of days to gather my arguments, sources, and present them to you.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Woodsy, posted 05-07-2010 6:36 AM Woodsy has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 308 of 477 (559388)
05-09-2010 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Dr Adequate
05-06-2010 10:46 PM


Evidence vs faith
I have asked you to suggest an alternative. What else is there to discuss? Apparently you would like to convince people of the existence of God, but without supplying them with any evidence for the existence of God.Now since evidence by definition is whatever is relevant to the truth of a proposition, there doesn't seem to be anything else to talk about.
Well, I'm glad we came to some sort of a common base here.
Are you saying that you are willing to accept non-scientific proofs (well, depends on how "proofy" they are to you..science vs. everything else) as evidence in my case for God?
If so, that's excellent! I will, in a couple days, start a new thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-06-2010 10:46 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2010 2:08 AM Pauline has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 309 of 477 (559393)
05-09-2010 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Pauline
05-08-2010 11:46 PM


Re: Half a circle... is 180 degrees
All I'm saying, and what you're missing, is that Dr A and his atheist friends here are looking for God in the wrong place.
It's the right place to look for everything else. But I'm open to argument --- show me the right place.
Science. Evidence. Numbers. Facts. Figures. Archaeological sites. Statistics. Controlled experiments. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. He's not there!!
Indeed. This is something he has in common with unicorns. Which makes me suspect that the reason he's not there is that he's not there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Pauline, posted 05-08-2010 11:46 PM Pauline has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 310 of 477 (559398)
05-09-2010 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by Pauline
05-08-2010 11:56 PM


Re: Hypothesis, Prediction, Observations
Well, if we did see angels flying around we would befriend and study them. And if they roamed frequently enough 9as you propose), we'd then reduce them from "supernatural" status to natural status.
No, not really. You're expecting to spend all eternity in the presence of God and his heavenly host, aren't you? At what point would you stop classifying him as supernatural?
To take another example, consider all the pilgrims who'd go and see bleeding statues of saints. They didn't think that this was the less miraculous because it happened as regularly as Old Faithful, did they? They thought it was miraculous because in nature objects of wood or stone do not bleed. (Of course, this was pious fraud by dishonest priests, but it would have been miraculous if the statues were really bleeding, and it would not have been less miraculous if they did so daily.)
What makes something supernatural is ... well, let's hear it from you ...
Supernatural, by definition, goes against natural laws ...
Yes.
... and therefore is exclusively rare or completely invisible.
Your conclusion does not follow from the definition. Something could be perfectly visible on a daily basis and still recognizable as supernatural. Suppose, for example, that the burning bush of Moses, that (you will recall) "burned with fire [but] was not consumed" was still doing so, and anyone could go and see it. It would still be a wonder and a sign, wouldn't it? It would only be natural if that was what fire normally did.
If it just happened in the case of the one bramble bush from which God spoke to Moses, would you be on these forums insisting that it was not supernatural? No, you would not. You'd be trumpeting it as evidence of the Bible that no atheist could refute. If there were any atheists under these circumstances.
Agree or not, DA? Anything observable, measurable, and quantifiable by humans through reason and senses is natural, no?
No. For example the miracles of Jesus as described in the gospels were observable, measurable, quantifiable and so forth. But the mere fact that people could see them wouldn't make them non-supernatural.
Um, how do you test your hypothesis, sir?
By comparing the prediction derived from it with observation.
We have never made any observations that disprove the existence of God...
(1) We have never made any observations that disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny. But the burden of proof is on the person who wants to claim that something does exist.
(2) The Problem Of Evil and the Argument From Undesign do appear on the face of it to be evidence against the existence of God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Pauline, posted 05-08-2010 11:56 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by tesla, posted 05-09-2010 8:14 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 326 by Pauline, posted 05-10-2010 12:32 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 311 of 477 (559399)
05-09-2010 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by Pauline
05-09-2010 12:08 AM


Re: Evidence vs faith
Well, I'm glad we came to some sort of a common base here.
Are you saying that you are willing to accept non-scientific proofs (well, depends on how "proofy" they are to you..science vs. everything else) as evidence in my case for God?
Whether I accept them depend on what they are. But I have repeatedly asked you to show me what such arguments would look like.
me, message 218 writes:
Can you suggest an equally good, or superior, method of testing such a claim? We're all ears.
me, message 221 writes:
If you can think of any other way to find out what the world is like except by examining the world to find out what it's like, then now would be a great time to say what it is.
me, message 257 writes:
If we can't discuss evidence and its interpretation ... then what else is there for us to discuss?
me, message 269 writes:
I have asked you to suggest an alternative. What else is there to discuss?
I find it hard to imagine an argument that does not rest on evidence, or to imagine evidence that is not in some way supplied by experience. But I am perfectly willing to watch you try to formulate such an argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Pauline, posted 05-09-2010 12:08 AM Pauline has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 312 of 477 (559456)
05-09-2010 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by slevesque
05-07-2010 3:57 PM


Anyone Care to Answer Anyway?
slevesque writes:
Afterall my apologetics course wasn't really what I imagined it to be, so the questions proposed to me haven't had the chance to get asked.
Are they possibly going to be asked (and attempted to answer...) in the future? Or is it just not that kind of place?
Fair enough, either way... Although there are a LOT of well-formulated questions on the first page of this thread. Hopefully some well-meaning Christian will come along and attempt to give them a decent answer.[/guilttrip]
I especially like this question:
Message 7
This message isn't specifically meant for slevesque (although he's certainly welcome to attempt these questions). Just saying this thread really did start off in a good direction, and it would be a shame if all these nice hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity were just left to rot without ever being given even an attempt at an answer...
Okay... now [/guilttrip]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by slevesque, posted 05-07-2010 3:57 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by slevesque, posted 05-09-2010 8:57 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 313 of 477 (559468)
05-09-2010 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by Dr Adequate
05-09-2010 1:54 AM


Re: Hypothesis, Prediction, Observations
quote:
What makes something supernatural is ... well, let's hear it from you ...
Supernatural is what mankind refers to anything they do not have the capacity to understand.
A magician flies across the room. It appears supernatural until examined and understood. Then it is simply natural mechanics when its understood.
I cannot teach a dog to rebuild a 350 four bolt main. But if the dog is smart enough i'll teach it to fetch a wrench.
What is true of the hard to answere questions concerning God may not be passable to all those who want to know. God will reveal it to those who have the capacity to understand.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2010 1:54 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 314 of 477 (559472)
05-09-2010 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by Stile
05-09-2010 7:21 PM


Re: Anyone Care to Answer Anyway?
The course was more intended on different presentations from different people from within the church, in order to give a practice ground for our 'apologetics' skills. I myself gave a presentation on Logic when after a couple of classes are became aware of the very little level of logic that was exhibited. (Let's not forget that the level we have here at EvC is very much higher then 'out there')
Altough I may well just give my 2 cents on the various questions asked in the beginning of the thread. Depends really if I find the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Stile, posted 05-09-2010 7:21 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2010 1:03 AM slevesque has replied

Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2410 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 315 of 477 (559480)
05-09-2010 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Pauline
05-08-2010 11:23 PM


Hello Dr. Sing.
37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Dwise1 and I make the same argument, so I'd like to continue this. I understand and respect these commandments. But I think regardless of their intent, I'd say the day-to-day application of the commandments is where the difference between theist and atheist morality really shows. The words say, "Love thy neighbor...", but the big question is: Why?
Consider this:
And, I'm agreeing with you that a lot of Christians do not "live in brotherhood" with others for selfish reasons but that's hardly a reason to trash their moral code itself. That's our imperfectness right there.
You're not understanding our point. We're not trashing the moral code. It's absolutely fine and dandy that most Christians love their neighbors and behave in a fashion that most humans would consider moral, and I'd admit that by and large, they don't live much differently, morality-wise, than the non-religious. What's different are motives. God (or Jesus, or both) was setting down a law which was to be followed, and which just so happened to be an outstanding moral tenet, regardless of your personal theology or lack thereof. So you really think that when Christians read this in the bible, that they're considering anything other than the fact that "God made this law, and it's a good law since I don't really want to harm my neighbor, but if I don't follow it, then that's a sin and I'll be judged one day for it."? Do you really think (except in the case of deep thinkers) they take it a step further and say, "Oh, and also, keeping this commandment is all to the betterment of society and my fellow humans, as well as to furthering my genetic lineage and personal heritage."? Again, I'd posit that while the latter statement would be much more likely found banging around inside an atheist's head than a theist's, the former statement is all too common thinking among the religious. Theists will follow the rules in order to avoid damnation, regardless of the intent of the commandment. In general.
3. Is there an authority that all atheists are subject to?
Yep, the same one to which theists are subjected: the US Justice system. You see, the commandments that law enforcment officials consider the most important have put many a criminal behind bars. Atheists know that, should they commit a crime which carries with it a certain penalty, that they'll be subject to that penalty should they be caught. Oh, and in case you forgot, part of my Message 250:
The non-religious, on the other hand, seem to have a better grip on enjoying this world, as it is the only one we'll ever experience (most rational atheists or agnostics are not so terrified of death nor disgusted with life to be gulled into thinking that the epitome of life is immortality, yet they do seem to recognize what a terrified existence their religious counterparts seem to live). You, as a theist, can argue, argue, and argue some more that if a person has not found Jesus in some form or another, that there is just no reason to behave morally. And yet, and yet, even though the percentage of atheists in this country is approaching 15-20%, the percentage of atheists serving time in prison these days is 0.2%! Striking, wouldn't you say?
---
Dr. Sing writes:
For argument's sake, I will grant to you (even though this is not in line with reality) that atheists stand on the same level as theists in their focus on living moral lives a.k.a, getting along with each other. Okay. Agreed, for argument's sake that is.
Did you just admit that, in order for argument to proceed, atheists must necessarily stoop to the level of theists' morality? Just wondering ...
dwise1 writes:
Such as Christianity teaches and preaches about morality being solely dependent on the existence of their god, even to the point that non-believers are supposed to become immoral. Such a foolish doctrine!
Christianity does not teach not to be moral. And you guys claim to have a deep understanding of the Scripture?
Dr. Sing, I think what he was getting at is that the Christian faith claims that, without God, people should degenerate into immorality (and chaos, as you're so fond of putting it). Reality (and incarceration statistics, and lower rates of violent crime in secular vs. religious countries, etc, etc...) shows us this is not the case. Wouldn't you agree with this?
Every sin a Christian commits with the complete knowledge of going against God's command and willingness to go against it, will severely be punished. God never lets sin go.
Ah, this again. From Message 250:
Apothecus writes:
Dr. Sing writes:
So, Christians are forgiven of the sins they commit SO LONG AS said sins are unintentional.
Apparently someone forgot to notify Christianity of this fact! How did you come by this knowledge, and why aren't you spreading the word??? Every church I've ever attended (from liberal to fundy to Catholic) has claimed, in not so many words, that your sins were paid for by the blood of Christ. Now, they go on to say that, yes, murder, rape, etc are Very Bad Sins, but that there are generally no sins which are unforgivable. Most of your incarcerated brethren, "born again" since donning the orange coveralls, would be shocked and dismayed, mystified and mortified to hear of this caveat in their conversion.
So, really, Dr. Sing? According to you, only the sins you intended are unforgivable? What then, would be some examples of forgivable sins, and why, if they were unintentional, would they be considered sins?
Have a good one.

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Pauline, posted 05-08-2010 11:23 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by hERICtic, posted 05-10-2010 6:25 AM Apothecus has replied
 Message 327 by Pauline, posted 05-10-2010 2:39 PM Apothecus has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024