Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 241 of 477 (558907)
05-05-2010 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Dr Adequate
05-05-2010 1:05 PM


Re: A farce by any other name ...
That's an odd interpretation of my behavior. And wrong, but it's the oddity that I'm now going to think about.
I am not trying to annoy you, I'm just trying to debate with you. If I ever really want to annoy you, then believe me you'll notice.
Well, I don't mean to trash you either.
The thing is, if you are interested in hitting at the crux of the matter, like Hyroglyphyx pointed out, you would never said this:
DA writes:
quote:
Yeah! So...
Would you rather throw away morality then? No need of morals at all?
No, of course not.
You seem to be trying to put up a false dichotomy: either I believe in the God that you believe in, or I have no morality whatsoever. That is not actually how it works.
Sure, have your own morality standard........only, your attempts to live up to any standard are going to fail. Whether you like it or not.
We are running in circles.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-05-2010 1:05 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-05-2010 1:21 PM Pauline has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 248 of 477 (558951)
05-05-2010 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Phage0070
05-05-2010 2:30 PM


Re: A farce by any other name ...
How exactly do you equate a need for something with the existence of something? I see the need for a cure for all disease, but it does not mean one exists. I see the need for a convenient and endless source of energy, but it does not mean it exists.
Phage, I understand English. This isn't an echo chamber. Dr A is quite successful at putting his points across. I got his point. Right now a lot of people are getting to give their input, and the burden is on me to give fair attention to all points put forth and be open to all valid, relevant lines of discussion within the boundaries of the main post. There are quite a few threads hanging around that need to be tied right now, and I don't need duplicates that only increase the noise in the room. I get his point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Phage0070, posted 05-05-2010 2:30 PM Phage0070 has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 251 of 477 (558978)
05-05-2010 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Dr Adequate
05-05-2010 2:03 PM


Re: A farce by any other name ...
DA writes:
Then this debate is useless.
How can we agree that the scientific method is useless? It abolished smallpox, it put men on the moon, and it is the reason why we have computers that can communicate over the Internet. We couldn't even be having this discussion if not for the fact that the scientific method totally kicks ass.
Okay.
If this debate is useless, then this debate is........over.
I'm not going to post anything more.
If there is one, just one, atheist out there who honestly, and willingly agrees that we should not and cannot apply the scientific method to understand the supernatural, I might continue my side of discussion.
I'm not angry or ticked off. My problem is, if you guys aren't willing to let go of it right now... the debate, most probably, is gonna end at "me: so, ____ is why we need to believe God. You: But where is the physical evidence for God, why should I even believe in a God I don't even see????"
I'm not for this.
-DS

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-05-2010 2:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by anglagard, posted 05-06-2010 12:21 AM Pauline has replied
 Message 254 by anglagard, posted 05-06-2010 12:32 AM Pauline has not replied
 Message 258 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-06-2010 1:55 AM Pauline has not replied
 Message 260 by dwise1, posted 05-06-2010 12:45 PM Pauline has seen this message but not replied
 Message 261 by Apothecus, posted 05-06-2010 1:42 PM Pauline has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 253 of 477 (558982)
05-06-2010 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Dr Adequate
05-05-2010 1:48 PM


Re: Half a circle... is 180 degrees
Apparently, the atheists.
I don't have to waste a moment of my time thinking: "Hey, that woman's cute, I should rape her ... oh, wait, but that's immoral"; or "Hey, I'm short of money, so I should mug that little old lady ... oh, wait, but that's immoral".
The people who have to think about morality a lot are the people who are led into temptation a lot. I hardly ever have to think about morality except in abstract discussions of it on Internet forums.
So I can spend my time thinking about stuff that is way more interesting. Why should I have to think about morality?
Wow. Just.....wow.
I.........am a bit nonplussed right now.
Um, okay, Dr Adequate. Lets talk a walk down the road we've just come, shall we? I think I need this.
In responding to my main post, you first objection was that: There is no better way than the scientific method to study anything and that this is the most reliable way. Here are your words:
quote:
That's not what he said. He just challenged you to suggest an alternative.
For example, if you claimed supernatural powers to raise the dead, then we could in principle take you to a morgue and see if you could do what you claimed. That would be using the scientific method, and the test would be effective --- either you really could or you really couldn't, and we'd be able to tell one way or another.
Can you suggest an equally good, or superior, method of testing such a claim? We're all ears.
Next, your second objection is: A realization of moral imperfection does not necessitate the existence of its remedy, instead it makes us wish for there to exist such a remedy. Here are your words:
quote:
But this does not follow. Being hungry does not prove that we have bread, and being conscious of our own imperfection does not prove that there is propriation, just that we'd like there to be.
When I ask you to step out of your arena, into mine and ask you to allow for the possibility of supernatural existence, here is your response"
quote:
I can conceive of the possibility, just as I can conceive of the existence of unicorns. What I cannot do is see a unicorn. Because there aren't any unicorns.
You simply dismiss me.
But a few sentences later, you say this
quote:
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.
And if you want to make out that it is "ridiculous" to apply this concept to your religious beliefs, then perhaps it is time for you to offer some actual special pleading, rather than behaving as though this has already been offered.
I'm confused! Utterly.
1. You do not want to conceive of God, just like you are not interested in conceiving of pink unicorns...
2. You want me to use the scientific method
3. You challenge me to propose a better method because you think I'm just blowing smoke here and have nothing to offer.
Yet, you want to have discussion with me....about God.
Before I even breathe or blink, you offer a nother objection:
quote:
Yes, I "see the need" for an "absolute standard". But I do not see why that "absolute standard" should be the one that you preach.
And as if all that you say needs to be said twice or thrice you reiterate a previous objection:
quote:
Nor do I suppose that because I need such a thing that it should therefore exist. Being hungry does not prove that I have bread.
Ahh, I was looking for these. Fancy fallacy names. In classic atheist style...
quote:
You seem to be trying to put up a false dichotomy: either I believe in the God that you believe in, or I have no morality whatsoever. That is not actually how it works.
You're telling me that its okay to reject my God's moral code and instead have imperfect men follow a imperfect, self-made moral code.
Wait!!! But didn't you agree with me that you "see the need" for a "absolute moral code"?? Your words...
quote:
Yes, I see the need for an absolute moral standard.
But that doesn't mean that I think that one exists. I just wish that one did and that someone could tell me what it is.
AND, ignoring my points on what the Christian religion offers, you are left with a circle to run around in:
quote:
Indeed, Christians are obliged by their religion to belive that this is true of them [that we a imperfect followers of God's moral code]. So what's your point?
Well, maybe if you didn't open a fire hose at me, you would actually hear what I was saying.
---
But...
quote:
Do you want to have a discussion or not, DA?
I do, but not if I first have to agree as a premise that "the scientific method is useless".
You do want to have a discussion. I am supposed to play the game under your rules.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-05-2010 1:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-06-2010 1:35 AM Pauline has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 255 of 477 (558985)
05-06-2010 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by anglagard
05-06-2010 12:21 AM


Re: A farce by any other name ...
If you were expecting to convert people to your own unique interpretation of what constitutes the divine, guess what, you are alone in your relationship to God.
This forum is for those who question, not those who follow without question. As for the viability of which side is more moral or ethical, let history be the judge.
Are you explicitly stating that your purpose in this forum was to convert rather than to learn? As if you have already declared yourself perfect in the eyes of God and require no further progress. What a small god you worship.
Did you really expect to convert any old timers here to your version of reality without having the deep knowledge and understanding of both scripture and science that so many have?
Are you out of your mind?
In what way have I attempted to proselytize you here?
Is my asking for a common ground to have a debate not valid?
This forum is not for kids, please 'know thyself' first.
Go ahead and run away from knowledge and self-examination, eventually you will regret your selfish egotism in the face of God.
The only emotional response I have for you is one of sadness, for that of a soul who insists upon being lost over false pride.
Have I said ONE THING that is intrinsically, authentically derived from MY mind? The 8 points I gave you are not mine. They're from my faith.
There are so many things that atheists and theists don't agree on when it comes to faith. And in a faith debate, when I ask for momentary allowance of just ONE point of disagreement in order to have a discussion, this is the response I get?
How utterly frustrating!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by anglagard, posted 05-06-2010 12:21 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by anglagard, posted 05-06-2010 1:28 AM Pauline has seen this message but not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 263 of 477 (559128)
05-06-2010 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Dr Adequate
05-06-2010 1:35 AM


Re: Half a circle... is 180 degrees
dwise1 writes:
But you see, that's not what you were asking. At least not consistently. Instead, it looked like you were conducting a kind of "bait and switch" on us, asking a reasonable question and then substituting it with a completely unreasonable one. Since far too many of us have encountered far too many Christians trying to pull that and far too many other dishonest tricks far too many times, we are very quick to spot any hint that you are trying to do the same.
As a Chinese co-worker once told me: "Never tie your shoe in a watermelon patch." If you're in somebody else's watermelon patch and you stop and reach down to tie your shoe, then it would appear to somebody seeing you that you were stealing a watermelon. IOW, avoid even the appearance of doing something wrong.
As it appears to me, you may have originally posed the question as something like "the scientific method is useless for understanding the supernatural", but the version that I first saw and kept seeing until I had dug back far enough through the verbage was "the scientific method is useless". You see? First you made the question specific by qualifying it as pertaining to the supernatural, but then you made it general by letting to apply to everything. That is the "bait and switch" and that is what we all disagreed with.
Why should we agree that the scientific method is useless? Why would anyone even vaguely familiar with the scientific method agree to such nonsense? Why would you expect us to agree to such a nonsensical question?
Is the scientific method able to deal with the supernatural? No, of course not, because there is no way to observe the supernatural or even detect whether it exists. True, we may be able to form hypotheses, but there is no way to test those hypotheses. Now, if the supernatural were to somehow express itself in the natural world, then the scientific method might be able to detect and examine that (know of any such cases?), but it would still be very difficult to test any hypotheses we would form. Besides, the exercise of "explaining" a phenomenon we don't understand yet as having been caused by the supernatural would be falling into the trap of the false theology of "The God of the Gaps", whose effect is to halt all further scientific examination.
I would be willing to allow that you were not actually attempting to commit a "bait and switch", but rather had just gotten sloppy. Just be aware that sloppiness does have its consequences, as you have observed on this thread.
Now, just what is your point with that question? I've seen you asked that repeatedly, but I never could find a straight answer from you.
Also, you have been asked for an alternative method for understanding the supernatural and how it is supposed to work. Again, I have not seen you answer that question. Evading simple and necessary direct questions is yet another tactic that far too many of us have seen far too many Christians use far too many times. Any doubts as to why our patience has been worn so thin?
Really? What about this:
DR.SING writes:
I know of no better way to understand and test observable, natural phenomena than the scientific method.
Look at Message 229
Dr. Sing writes:
If there is one, just one, atheist out there who honestly, and willingly agrees that we should not and cannot apply the scientific method to understand the supernatural, I might continue my side of discussion.
Message 251
Should I write this another 200,000 hundred times? Will you believe me then?
Dr A and I were having a dialogue:
DA writes:
For example, if you claimed supernatural powers to raise the dead, then we could in principle take you to a morgue and see if you could do what you claimed. That would be using the scientific method, and the test would be effective --- either you really could or you really couldn't, and we'd be able to tell one way or another.
....
Can you suggest an equally good, or superior, method of testing such a claim? We're all ears.
DS writes:
I know of no better way to understand and test observable, natural phenomena than the scientific method.
Question is, is super-naturalism natural? physical? I mean, you can never take God to a cemetery and say "okay, yeah, raise my 80 year old grandma and I'll believe you're God."
Are we convinced yet?
I made it crystal clear that 1. I do not advocate using the scientific method to understand the supernatural! 2. I advocate using the scientific method to understand the natural world.
What exactly did you waste your time for writing that huge post for such a small matter?
I mean, others get it.
--Yeah, everybody, now get out of this idiotic science forum and become buddhists. It is me! Gautama Buddha speaking! Abolish science, the scientific method (it is useless, BTW) and all the crap that goes into studying it! Follow me! and let us conquer the world---
Your post looks like it would have been a relevant response to ^ such words, IF I ever said them. But you have taken my sincere words and twisted them in your mind. You've also accused me out bait and catching....when I have done nothing like it.
This is really a slap in your face.
Let's look at my quotes that contained the words "the scientific method is useless" OR something to THAT effect:
DS writes:
1. Does everything have to pass the scientific method's scrutiny before one believes it to be true? What a ridiculous claim.
Here, we are dealing with supernaturalism. What, on the planet, is the point in making it subject to the scientific method?
2. So, the atheists agree that the scientific method is practically useless when it comes to understanding and verifying things in super-naturalism.
3. If the atheists do not agree that the scientific method is useless, then then is debate is useless. You just destroyed the common platform for our debate. Do you want to have a discussion or not, DA?
--This is the first time I unconsciously did not include the phrase "to study the supernatural".---
4.If there is one, just one, atheist out there who honestly, and willingly agrees that we should not and cannot apply the scientific method to understand the supernatural, I might continue my side of discussion.
That's 3 times of including the phrase "to study the supernatural" and ONE, just one, time of not including it...that too, totally unintentional.
If I missed any quotes, please show them to me.
----
Am I being accused fairly here?
---
dw1 writes:
Now, just what is your point with that question? I've seen you asked that repeatedly, but I never could find a straight answer from you.
Want to know? Here is your answer:
DA writes:
If you can supply me with evidence that there is a God, then I'll think about it with an open mind, and maybe I'll argue with you, and maybe I'll dispute your evidence, and maybe I'll dispute the conclusions that you draw from the evidence, and maybe I'll try to pick holes in your logic ... and so on. That would be a discussion. You might even win.
If you can't get to stage 1, where you put up some evidence, then what is there left for us to talk about?
It'll just be you saying: "There is a God, there is a God, there is a God", and me saying: "I don't believe you". If we can't discuss evidence and its interpretation ... then what else is there for us to discuss?
Evidence is what he wants. And I assume he means evidence from a physical source of some sort. Something tangible! Something that be tested via experiments...since it seems like what he sees is what he believes and what he doesn't see with his eyes, automatically and dogmatically cannot exist!
Do you see the problem, dw1?
It chokes the discussion.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-06-2010 1:35 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Meldinoor, posted 05-06-2010 9:16 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 269 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-06-2010 10:46 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 272 by dwise1, posted 05-07-2010 3:20 AM Pauline has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 264 of 477 (559129)
05-06-2010 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by dwise1
05-06-2010 6:11 PM


Re: Why Not Answer Woodsy's Question?
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?
Philosophy! Metaphysics, Ethics, Logic, Philosophy of religion. If you want to categorize my argument into one of these, that's ethics. Dealing with morality!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by dwise1, posted 05-06-2010 6:11 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by dwise1, posted 05-07-2010 2:15 AM Pauline has not replied
 Message 273 by Woodsy, posted 05-07-2010 6:36 AM Pauline has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 267 of 477 (559134)
05-06-2010 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Meldinoor
05-06-2010 9:16 PM


Re: Half a circle... is 180 degrees
Re: Half a circle... is 180 degrees
Hello Dr Sing,
As I'm something of a lurker who's only glanced at the thread so far, please forgive me if I've missed something.
Hi Meldinoor!
Thank you for your post. It helped me get back on track.
1. Why does the scientific method not apply to the supernatural? Don't just apply circular reasoning with replies such as: "Because it only applies to natural phenomena".
The main elements of the scientific method are :
1. Observations
2. Hypotheses
3. Predictions
4. Experiments
Let's see if supernaturalism is subject to these elements:
1. Observation: The supernatural itself cannot be physically observed, measured, quantified, or qualified. (There is evidence that is attributable to supernatural work, but unfortunately, people look at it with different views. For example, I as a theist look at nature and believe that it necessarily indicates the existence of a supreme, creative Being who is responsible for creating what I see. And I use the scientific method to study what I see. Whereas, an atheist will by no means believe that nature points to God's existence. He will want to see God Himself!)
2. Hypothesis: Since there are no recorded observations, there is no scope for a hypothesis. EVEN if we counted nature as the collected data, there can be no hypothesis formulated that can test for the existence of God.
3. Prediction: Can there be one?
4. Experiment: We cannot construct physical experiments because we have no data or materials!
The whole idea falls at the outset because of lack of direct, measurable data! Supposing, we propose the use of natural objects to get a set of observations to work with, and we create some sort of a hypothesis and experiment and predict a certain result, we cannot by any means expect the supernatural out there to respond! for example, I can assemble some chemicals, create a hypothesis and an experiment to test for the presence of Chlorine gas. This is possible because I know Chlorine's properties and that if it is produced in the experiment, then I will surely recognize it based it on its properties. Can you do this with God?
2. What alternative method would you propose for studying the supernatural?
Logic and philosophy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Meldinoor, posted 05-06-2010 9:16 PM Meldinoor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-07-2010 8:54 AM Pauline has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 268 of 477 (559136)
05-06-2010 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by dwise1
05-06-2010 9:44 PM


Re: Let's See ...
Before we get to this,
any response to Msg 263?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by dwise1, posted 05-06-2010 9:44 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by dwise1, posted 05-07-2010 1:28 AM Pauline has seen this message but not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 274 of 477 (559161)
05-07-2010 7:55 AM


Work is going to keep me away from extra activities today. I'll get back to you all, latest by tomorrow.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 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 3735 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 3735 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 3735 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 3735 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

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024