Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
@supersmash43 Darwinism can be misused and turned into a straw man (and often is by the uneducated) but it is also a real term used to describe a particular concept within evolution which Darwin gets the credit.
@KingHeathen I don't like the word "Darwinism" because it implicitly refers to "social Darwinism," which is a eugenic doctrine in which the laws of natural selection are applied to human society - that people who are socially "successful" are more desirable while those who are not sucessful (poor, disabled, minority races, etc.) are written off as being "bad genetic material" (and often, steriliizied).
It has nothing to do with sience or the ToE, of course.
He is well spoken, presentable and handsome. Unfortunately his theories are just nonsense. God is the truth, not Richard Dawkins. Is he the antichrist?
If Christianity is nothing more than a construct of man- if it is not true- then you're absolutely right. Saying a person should be punished for going against it is the epitome of moral bankrupcy.But...would that be the case if it's true? That's where the issue lies. You can't make these statements until you establish the falsehood of Christian beliefs.(As for your statistic, even if it were true what's your point?Not everyone who believes in a god is Christian.)
ricky, don't cast your pearls before swine. ananiasacts is simply beyond the point of reason and entroaching into outright hatred for "filty Christians". I'm not sure what kind of experience you've had with christians in the past, anan, but when you lower yourself to stereotyping an entire group of people for the actions of a few, then you've no place the intellectual ring- it is no place for venting such frustrations.Maybe you should take the time to get to know some real christians first.
@Kodiaksaint, The ideology itself is morally bankrupt. Blasphemy and apostasy are thought crimes. No decent person could accept the idea that another should be punished for something they think. No decent person would wish to have full and complete responsibility for their actions to be transferred to someone else. Criminals love that idea though, which perhaps explains why there are so few atheists behind bars (less that 1/4 of 1% in America.) I notice you don't respond to my reasons.
humans are like novelists. Constantly evolving and refining their work. When we were less experienced we came up with religion. Now that we are wiser we have balled it up, thrown it in the bin, and moved on. Still refining our ideas.
Religious ppl are not helping by waving the tattered old idea in our faces and telling us to go backwards.
@1990ricky1990, I get the feeling that some people really are extraordinarily cowardly, selfish, petty, lazy, wicked, or something like that because there is no way that a decent thoughtful person would ever even want to have full responsibility for all of their mistakes taken away from them. The very idea is such a deep affront to our innate sense of justice I just don't see how so many people could possibly endorse it. I'm guessing that's why they have to start with very young kids to sell it.
@1990ricky1990, Here's how BFfootballDude puts it: "Well Christianity teaches that all people are depraved, sinful, and justifiably heading to hell, and the only way to reverse this course is to willfully accept Jesus Christ as the only way to forgiveness and eternal life. Everyone is innately wicked and sinful, without exception. Jesus said that if you look upon another person with lust, you are an adulterer."
I think he sums it up the filthy Christian perspective quite accurately.
I draw the line at referring to christian's beliefs at filthy. There are two kinds of athiest:
1.ones who respectfully disagree with religious faiths based on logical thinking.
2.ones who have a vendetta against religions and insult and disrespect peoples beliefs.
I'm afraid you fall into the latter category; based on what I've heard. I think you're self-assumed supperiority over religious thinkers is dissapointing... a little disgusting frankly. We are NOT on the same wavelength.
@gondolacrescent5, I read it many years ago. Filthy sophistry deliberately engineered to help readers hate people. It's what convinced me that it's not enough to just be indoctrinated as a child--a person must be genuinely dishonest and somewhat mean to endorse Christianity. I think religious people genuinely hate the most beautiful property of decent people--integrity. I just disagree with you and think every atheist should read his tripe: makes it easier to see that it's not about god at all.
@gondolacrescent5, I read it like 25 years ago maybe. So I don't remember much past what I've recalled already. It doesn't surprise me that a religious person would miss all of that. Gosh, you folks believe its possible to sin merely by thinking. You believe its actually desirable to have someone else take responsibility for your mistakes. Such ideas appeal only to criminals and the wicked. Obviously you're going to miss morally bankrupt perspectives because you actually are an immoral person.
@gondolacrescent5, Again, you completely avoided by points. This is why I find it so easy to condemn religion as a malevolent fraud. Even you folks realize that the ideas it promulgates (like thought crimes) are indefensible and morally reprehensible. That's why you refuse to discuss it and instead look for sophistic arguments that merely cloud and confuse the real issues. Defend the first commandment if you wish to prove you aren't simply a phony.
@gondolacrescent5, I don't like beating up you folks. I wrote a blog essay to explain that religion could easily become our best invention with just one small change. But the reality of our times make it pretty clear that the conflict between religious groups (that ironically claim to worship the same deity) has become simply intolerable. That's why I believe it is important to 'rub your noses in it' wherever the opportunity arises. Religion has enjoyed immunity from criticism for far too long.
@gondolacrescent5, Decent people don't run from their mistakes. They try to redress them. Deleting all of your posts only proves you don't have much integrity and pretty much confirms what I claimed earlier about that book you love so much. And then closing with a lie only demonstrates how meaningless honesty is to someone like you. I sure hope you've learned something here and don't continue to just waste people's time.
If I'm here for four score years then I cease to exist, logic says I should live it up, since all existence is absurd anyway. Why leave a "legacy?" It won't make any difference to me since i won't exist.
It's a selfish worldview, and is the only one that pure Naturalism can lead to. Any ideas that it has about nobility, dignity and goodness are just personal constructs that don't really exist but are there to make usfeel better.
Show me how you get ideals of nobility in an absurd existence.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
1. It's a Socratic question.
2. It is perfectly obvious. The simple truth is that Naturalism can only lead to narcissism, as existence has no ultimate meaning (after all how can something resulting purely by fluke from chance and mistakes have "purpose"?) I believe we as humans do have purpose. I also believe that naturalism can only logically lead to the opposite conclussion, so yes I do believe what i've said.Please answer my question instead of dodging it.
Because I recognize I have a finite time on this earth I should make the most of the time I'm here.
I should make this world as good as I can make it because this is the only one I will exist on.I should make connections and meaningful relationships with those here because those connections and works are the only indeligible marks you leave when you go.There is no perfect paradise unless we make one here.I define the purpose to my life, not scripture,not fear,me.Any more questions?
I should make the most of it here. I should make ti good. Very noble thoughts, but in the end naturalism leaves no room for nobility and self-sacrifice. It proclaims a universe where existence is absurd-there is no meaning, no point. We came about through chaos and chance, and we will end the same way. So while I agree with what you said above, I don't see how naturalism can bring one to that conclusion.
Yet we see all around us everyday examples of people who sacrifice their lives for those less fortunate for themselves, even though they get no benefit from their good works besides the simple pleasure good brings (a pleasure that according to your worldview is foolish since it has no tangable value).Naturalism has no way of explaining such acts of selfless kindness.Yet we admire those people.This tell us that there is something more to morality than what is beneficial to myself. What is it?
If I sacrifice myself for my children, it IS for me. Again, how do you not see this as obvious? It's better for the young to carry on than the old. Through EMPATHY, I understand that it's best for a group of 10 to survive than for just one.
Other animals do this too. What god are they trying to please? There are some animals whose young will EAT EACH OTHER! Others that murder the smaller siblings. This is the world your god "designed". Where is the morality in that?
1: For a parent to sacrifice himself for his children is among the noblest acts a human can do. But tell me this; when in that situation, are you thinking, "Oh how will sacrificing myself benefit me?" Of course not, all your thoughts are on your children. There is nothing selfbenefiting from that, it's an entirely selfless act (and remember selflessness has no place in a world where only the fit survive).
2: As to your second comment, you know what I'd say to that. email me if you don't.
You aren't going to live forever. The closest way you can leave a permanent mark is via your off spring. If you can't see that leaving progeny is a self interest you may simply lack the intelligence and lack a sense of ethics to debate morality. You must have some type of retarded development if you believe that the most fundamental moral axiom, of sacrificing even our lives for our children, is the noblest thing you can do.
First, your first statement goes back to naturalism vs intelligent design.
Second, I'm sorry if I insulted you in some way by the insinuation that it is one of (I didn't say THE) noblest things a parent (I didn't say everyone) can do is sacrifice themselves for their children when it is necessary (I didn't say all the time).
Third, I specifically said that there is nothing wrong with doing something good when it helps you; the problem arises when self gain becomes your sole motivation.
1. The thoughts are on PRESERVATION whether that is preservation of myself or my family...which is part of our genetic disposition. It has EVOLVED into our mentality. You still don't see the blatant obviousness of this and it stuns me that you think you have a case.
2. I have no interest in emailing you. I'm also not psychic, therefore I prefer not to presume such things. You can answer it here, or I don't care.
I'm confused. At times you seem to be flying the flag for naturalism - at other times you appear to be pointing out its flaws. What are your beliefs?
I think you're right in pointing out that the only way to live PURELY by naturalism is to be utterly selfish. However I'm not sure if you're saying this means we should reject selflessness or naturalism.
@1990ricky1990, It's about discovering truth. That's what made us, and what enables us to prosper and grow--discovering and understanding the nature of the universe we are part of. We get that understanding from our lack of faith, and have discovered a process that almost mechanically grinds out these truths--its called "the scientific method." There is simply no chance that the god of truth would wish to be respected; that could only hamper our capacity to know him well. He'd want skeptics.
'And what is good Phadrus, and what is not good? Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?';
Socrates.
It's actually very simple. What is more 'fit' to survive? The society of rampamt selfishness, or the society of values of compassion, empathy, sympathy, trust, understanding and community spirit?'
Religions you can take your pick, or not.
Evolution you cannot reject, because it's not simply a truth of emperical science, it's a truth of LOGIC, and you cannot escape it.
Again, you are ignoring the heart of the issue. If Christianity is truly a fabrication of mankind than you're right, it doesn't matter which one you pick. But if it is real, then what?
As for evolution being the truth of LOGIC, that would depend on who you quote. There is enough disparity between evolution and everyday reality that the LOGIC of it can be easily thrown into question.
Socrates is right. We all have an engrained sense of good and evil. Question is, where does it come from?
No, evolution cannot be called into question. It's implicit in the words reproduction, variation and selection. There is no escaping it. It may not be the whole story, although increasingly it seems that it is, but what is beyond doubt is that it's unavoidable.
Brown hair is darker than blonde hair. I can see that.
All these facts are known as facts because they are observed in their fullest every day. Evolution in the sense of macroevolution has never been observed in its fullest. It's an assumption based on evidence that can be viewed to support other theories.
All the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic ... [which are] discoverable by mere thought ... Matters of fact, which are the second object of human reason, are not ascertained in the same manner; nor is our evidence of their truth, however great, of a like nature with the foregoing.
"Evolution in the sense of macroevolution has never been observed"
Well then I take it you have never seen the fossil record...
Evolution makes several predictions, if anyone of these predictions is wrong then Evolution is also wrong. For example evolution predicts the Whale evolved from a land mammal which gradually became sea dwelling, If we don't find fossils which show this transition Evolution is in trouble...Yet there are 10 different transitional fossils for the Whale.
So let me get this straight. We find a fossil of a whale. We find other fossils that are not whale, but because they has some similar features, this is absolute proof that the whale evolved.
Sorry, not seeing it. Could it possibly, just maybe within the realm of possibility, be that these are simply different species altogether that don't have anything to do with each other, and the observer's personal preconceptions shape the way he or she views the evidence?
"but because they has some similar features, this is absolute proof that the whale evolved"
No of course not, Evolution makes several predictions for example the whale changing from a land mammal to a sea one. Now if we only ever found a few extinct species which showed this transition I admit that I would not be convinced. But what convinces me is that EVERY SINGLE transition that Evolution predicts is found in the fossil record. Not just one or two, every single one.
Again, evidence has no voice of its own. The presuppositions of the observer will shape how he or she views it. When you see the various fossils, you see proof of transition. When I see the various fossils, I see proof of a common designer, much like a painter's paintings will have similar traits. What I'm asking for is not what the evidence MIGHT say about evolution- what I'm asking is for empirical evidence for evolution, something evolutionists claim is in abundance, but have yet to provide.
Now again I do no have enough room to properly deal with your "same designer" argument therefore I will have to refer you to this video which does a much better job than I ever could of showing why this is not a valid argument...
Search for (in youtube):
"Why "Same Designer, Same Genes" is not a valid argument"
@Kodiaksaint And when testing of fossils using one of the 100+ dating methods confirm the findings of each and other individual test? And when microbiologists confirm that DNA removed from those cells still able to reveal their genetic code confirm the other 100+ dating methods? And when evolutionary biologists come up with a chronological order of evolution, which in turn is confirmed by the other 100+ dating methods? This is presupposition? You're guessing. That's not very scientific my friend
This can also be true for any transition...from reptiles to birds, from ape to man. Whatever you want to bring up there are fossils which support this transition and there has NEVER been a fossil found to date which disproves Evolution...
So going on your logic...Evolution is a fact. I see it not only when I look at the fossil record but when I look at genetics, geology, chemistry, etc.
I don't recall saying there has ever been a fossil that disproves evolution. That's like saying I found a fossil that disproves God- it just doesn't stand up to reason. What I'm saying is that finding fossils that have some similar featuers is not empirical proof of macroevolution- seeing an animal transition into a completely different species under observable circumstances is empirical proof. Something which has yet to be done.
"That's like saying I found a fossil that disproves God- it just doesn't stand up to reason"
This is where you are wrong my friend since we CAN find a fossil which disproves evolution, but God on the other hand cannot be disproved ever.
For example I don't know if you are aware of Kirk Cameron's famous "Croca duck" but if we ever found a "Croca duck" in the fossil record Evolution from that point on would be invalid since...
Evolution shows that a "Croca duck" is impossible and predicts we will never find it. Every single fossil that has ever been found is compatible and better still PREDICTED by evolution.
Not one single scientific peer reviewed paper has ever been published which disagrees with evolution and yet there are hundreds to support it. Why is this??
"Seeing an animal transition into a completely different species under observable circumstances is empirical proof"
So what you are saying is unless we directly observe it, it dosen't exist?? Do you believe in Black Holes in that case?
So you walk in on a crime scene there is DNA evidence all over the place, you have found the murder weapon with the victims blood, all the evidence points to this man committing murder, yet you dont convict him because you didnt see it happen..
Well somebody certainly has a lot to say! :) First of all, I don't recall anybody ever saying that anybody without God can't be moral. Where did you get that ridiculous idea? Our point is that an atheist has no logical basis for the morality he claims to have.
Evolution being true has nothing to do with emperical evidence? And no, the empirical evidence does not support evolution. You say it does over and over, but give no examples. Are you just parroting what others before you have said?
THere have been many socities that have been highly moral without resort for divine Authority for their morals.
Morals evolve because they make society more fit.
Given a dynamic system with evidence for reproduction, variation and selection, and I'm sure you agree the Earth represents such a system, evolution becomes a priori true, it needs no further emperical evidence. It's inevitable, because of the meaning of the words.
I have given examples, but you seem to read only what suits you.
For further examples try Theodossius Dubzhansky 'Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of Evolution'. Good practising Christian was Dubzhansky, by the way.
I just noticed that you completely ignored and failed to address the points I made towards you, this speaks volumes to me, yes I am laughing at you.
Secondly the only argument you seem to have judging by your conversation with Gamesbok is to do with Morality which is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from science. Evolution is science and since you could not address my points because you simply cannot you go off talking about something else.
My statement about Evolution being necessarily true, a thuth of logic, has nothing to do with emperical evidence, although ALL emperical evidence supports evolution (even Behe is an evolutionist). Evolution is a priori true in and dynamic system that displays reproduction, variation and selection, and you can watch it any day.
We all hav an ingrained sense of good and evil because it evolved, as indeed it must.
If we went purely by what was 'fit' to survive, then morality as we know it would alter completely. Compassion? Hey, i don't care about you as long as you help me. empathy, sympathy? Heck, it's all about my survival, i'll only stick with you as far as you'll help me survive.Morality is more than just about action-it is also about motive.
Were those who helped hide Jews from Nazis doing what would help them survive? Or the underground railroad? No,but we consider their acts the highest morality.
I cannot believe you just brought up morality in a science topic. Science has nothing to do with morality they are totally separate things.
Science basically makes a hypothesis which is backed up by evidence...the conclusion of the hypothesis is irrelevant as long as it is supported by evidence.
I also suspect you are confusing evolution with atheism. One of my subscriptions is a Christian who makes youtube videos defending evolution. Are you calling him immoral??
It isn't about your survival or the survival of any individual, it's about the survival of a society. Are you being deliberately stupid?
"'It's actually very simple. What is more 'fit' to survive? The society of rampamt selfishness, or the society of values of compassion, empathy, sympathy, trust, understanding and community spirit?'"
Perhaps you should read a little Plato, Epiouros or Aristotle, all of whom wrote extensively on ethics and none of them resorted to 'divine' authority.
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
90% of statistic on YOUTUBE comments are fabricated lol
yeah cause hitler had a good old believe in the God of love, hence why he picked out the weak, and the the jewish
Oh, and of course the crusade were all about what the sermon i=on the mount was based upon.
turning the other cheek and showing love to others ...oops it was about power and money and greed covered over by mans rubbish excuse.... its for the church.
but he does raise good points. A lot of things have been done in the name of religion that were not true to what the religion really was. I'm sure you'd say the same about atheism- that a lot of things done in the name of atheism weren't truly representative.
Let me rephrase. No one does evil shouting "atheism live forever!" What I meant was the evil done with an atheistic perspective, which ultimately states that we humans are nothing more than blobs of genetic matter- complex matter, sure, but just matter nontheless. This removes any intrinsic value from human life. (and no, society as a whole didn't originally decide in intrinsic human value- it was those who believed in God who were historically the greatest advocates of humanitarianism.)
you are still wrong...it's ludacris to think someone would say (as so many Christians pathetically argue they would) "Since there is no god, I'm going to rape someone." Or "Fred, there is no god, so let's have gay sex!" The acts they did were for OTHER reasons not tied to a belief or lack thereof in any deities.
The same CAN NOT be said for religion. There ARE cases where it is said "He doesn't believe in our god....KILL HIM!"
Don't they? I'm not saying everyone's like that. But I am saying that an atheist simply has no basis for morality. And don't throw the 'morality is decided by society' cliche. We've seen throughout history that society is easily influenced into committing atrocoius acts. And yes, some religions do say what you gave as an example. Even more do the opposite; "Oh he doesn't believe in God, we must love him and pray for him."
Our morality is based on the same thing yours is...empathy. The understanding that what hurts me would hurt someone else and for that reason it shouldn't be done.
If you think that you get your morality from the Bible, then I ask you....
Would you consider it moral to stone someone to death for picking up firewood on the sabbath? Your Bible has no problem with it. I find it repulsive. You?
1. Why not? If there is no overarching moral law, then who cares if it hurts someone?the fact is that you can't base morality on a feeling.That's the difference between us;you have no real basis for what ought to be.Sure you know what it is, but you can't explain why it should be.Empathy is nothing to go on;I feel empathy towards the the family of the murderer who is about to be executed; so since empathy is the basis for what is right, justice be hanged do what empathy demands.
If you don't understand the answer to that question, then stay the hell away from my children. You would have to be a seriously sick bastard not to understand the very basic concept of "causing suffering is bad for society." Think about it...I hurt his family, they hurt mine. Mutually NOT beneficial. I help them, they help me...MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL! No god required, it's cause/result. Action/Consequence. This is stuff children figure out on their own with no concept of a god.
But don't you see? If that's the case, then all motivation for doing good is ultimately out of pure selfishness; i don't do bad because I will get hurt, I do good because I will benefit. That's all the world has to look forward to in a reality where we are all that there is- actions that may be good, but don't have any true spirit of real goodness in them.
What are you talking about? Your alternative is to not do bad for fear of hell. How is that any different? You just trade real, daily lives consequences for fantastic imaginary afterlife consequences. You trade the feeling of helping someone better themselves for a reward in Heaven after you die.
Besides, SO WHAT!? What's wrong with helping others because it also helps you? What's wrong with not doing something because it causes harm?
If that's what you think then you don't understand our theology as well as you think. And there's nothing wrong with helping others when it helps yourself. The problem is when that self gain is your sole motivation. So now you're going on about the "feeling of helping others"? Where did that come from? How does that fit into a world where the only reason we help others is because we gain something from them? theism has a basis for such emotions, yet naturalism can't explain it.
Actually, you are dead wrong and even backwards. Your religion (if you believe your family will go to heaven if they die) should DESIRE that they die sooner. It would be SELFISH of you NOT to want them to go to heaven faster, right?
The survival of a society is DEPENDENT on empathy, compassion, order, etc. Who said there was one "sole motivation?" Stop inferring things that aren't said and maybe you'll see why you are missing the obvious here.
I'm inferirng simple logic. If human beings are nothing more than a randomly-contrived blob of genetic material, there is no intrinsic value in one. I agree that the idea of morality is what society depends on in order to function. What I'm saying is that naturalism has no answer to why we should care about things that don't directly apply to us.
you just said that society depends on people acting "morally"....we'd both agree that the existence of society is beneficial to the continued existence of man.
Therefore to ask for an answer from naturalism for why we should act "morally" is just....
Ther atheist values his relationship with you because that's the highest relationship he's got. Someone who places his relationship with some fancyful deity on a higher footing cannot be so trusted.
'....it was those who believed in God who were historically the advocates of greatest humanitarianism'.
Doesn't seem to be true of Moses, who was a Nazi.
Take Tony Blair. He'll lie to your face, because he has a relationship with God that's more important than his relationship with you. Because he's religious he cannot be trusted.
There have been great religious humanitarians, but as has been said, 'Good men do good and evil men do evil, but for a good man to do evil requires religion'.
@ivlfounder Just as Zionism is not distinguishable from Nazi philosophy, being an idiology of racial superiority, and utterly amoral to those who believe in natural justice and humanity, so Moses, as the inventor of genocide and racism, must be condemmed. I would trust Desmond Tutu with my life, because I believe in his humanity, but I KNOW Tony Blair lied me into two illegal wars for religious reasons, and no atheist has ever lied to me for religious reasons.
You throw around the term Nazi with the flippancy of an undereducated child, and if you truly trusted any theist with your life you would have apologized for your apparent bigotry instead of avoiding the subject, what's more atheists lie all the time to further atheism case in point YOU.
@ivlfounder I am VERY specific when I use the term Nazi, and I can justify it. If you have a point, please make it. I'm tired of your vacuous insults.
@ivlfounder Einstein, after the Deir Yassin massacre, in which Jews killed more than 250 Palestinian civilians in 1948, signed a letter to the New York Times describing the Herut Party (aka Likud) as "closely akin in its organisation, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties".
@ivlfounder I'm not aware of Einstein ever sticking his hand in a pot of boiling water. I am aware of Einstein publishing in just one year (1905) 5 papers, any one of which could have won him the Noble Prize, but a pan of boiling water? Your fantasy world has defeated me yet again.
I haven't run anywhere. If you don't have substance it's incumbent on you to retire.
@ivlfounder Sorry, but it was you that derailed the dialog. He gave a specific example of what he was saying and you responded with argumentum absurdium. He called you out on in and then you just kept listing various fallacies without ever addressing what he ACTUALLY said.
I'm not taking sides in the original argument, but all you are doing here is avoiding the issue. If you feel you've already made your point and just want the last word, then it's just silly.
@gamesbok Please explain to me how Moses invented racism. His race was condemned to slavery (so the bible says) due to racism... which was before his birth. So explain that to me. I just dislike it when people make such blunt statements that aren't true, just to villainize a biblical character. The stories aren't the problem, it's the people who justify immorality with the stories.
@itbevee As historically the time of the catptivty can only have been during Hyksos domination they were masters, not slaves. There was a subclass, the Habiru, of landless agricultural workers. But the people of Moses were strange slaves, and they had considerable credit, which they maxed out before deliberately defaulting. You're still left with Moses, on the run for murder, inventing a 'master race', enforcing the idiology with violence, and a genocidal land grab through Cannan. Nazi.
@Kodiaksaint, listen to some of Steven Pinker's work. He explains it well. The fact is that rationality itself is the source of morality. It flows straight from communication because the upside benefit of cooperation is so fantastically more adaptive than competition. There may well be people so morally indolent or bankrupt they lack the sense of decency most everyone is born with. But, if that were true, religious scum wouldn't need to indoctrinate such young kids to perpetuate their myth.
@Kodiaksaint That is just a bizarre, illogical leap:
Random origin=no intrinsic value.
I would say the sun has intrinsic value, as does our atmosphere. Everything on planet Earth that is a necessary precondition of life has intrinsic value from the perspective of we living things.
But here's the real problem: who cares? We ARE the result of natural processes (not random ones, by the way), so there's no point in discussing the alternative.
@TBlake34 Now who's making bizarre illogical leaps? First, we may as well stop saying intrinsic as we seem to have conflicting definitions of the word. Second, you're right. If we're all there is, then there's no point in caring about anything. We live we die the end. (Not random? Of course it's random- if it wasn't designed, then that's the only option available)There is a point under one condition-if its true which is the whole discussion
The atheist values his relationship with you because that's the highest relationship he's got. Someone who places his relationship with some fancyful deity on a higher footing cannot be so trusted.
If you are going to say things like "90% of serial killers are fundamentalist christians (mostly catholic and southern baptist)" you really do need to site you're sources. It doesn't matter whether it is true or not.
saw another video, says atheists are least likely to get divorced too. seems wierd theyre being 'joined by god' in marriage and they dont believe in it. :p
Are you serious?! The most devout christians you will ever fin are in the heart of any state penitentiary! This is a FACT! And the reason is no matter how terrible your crime was, everyone feels the sting of regret. Christianity gives people a way out, there's this "sacrificial lamb" who died to absolve us of guilt and accountability. I don't know where you're getting your facts, but it doesn't take much more than watching "dog the bounty hunter" to see you're grossly miss-informed.
So, does god get his morals elsewhere or does he choose the morals?
If he gets his morals elsewhere, then morality exists out of god, so I doubt you would choose that.
But if god chooses the morals, why didn't he pick other morals or even different morals? He would have just choose them just because. And his rationality/omniscience not be there. Which is one of god's attributes. So, it wouldn't be good to follow DCT.
Kant and Hume's response to the OA are both weak but there are others, such as Oppys. The God of religion cannot be proven through argument, only a Diestic god. All the arguments have to be true for a Theistic god to be true, let alone the theistic god of any one interpritation of any one faith. How Is "God" free from the anomaly rule in a way the universe would not be. I see no flaw in my response to the design argument, point one out if one exists.
There is no proof that objective morality exists. Eurethro has not been countered; either the morality divine command theory brings is purely arbitrary (and in no way objective) or it is based on some underlying maxim that would exist without God. The Utility Principle and The Categorical Imperative, flawed as they both are, seem to me much better guides to an objective morality than Divine Command, which we can never justifiably believe we know, anyway.
Design argument(s): naturalistic (and alternative non-natural) explanations of complexity, evidence of design is in our heads, infinite regress (no way of stopping it doesn't apply to the universe too)
Ontological argument(s); existence is not a predicate
Moral argument: no objective morality, atheistic explanations of objective morality
etc. for other
The closest to a defeater of all is that, in all the arguments (including cosmological), the god is more Diestic or Pantheistic than theistic
Where did i say there was "one" "clear" "defeater," I said the arguments fail, perhaps i didn't say it clearly enough but that's youtube's fault for comment limits. There are numerous weaknesses in the theistic arguments, some of them very strong others less so, that mean they are all effectively useless, at least unless you presuppose god.
I agree that the first cause exists outside time, but I believe change (which would be precluded by this) is necessary for personability. But as personability hasn't fully been defined I can't really argue the point as well as I would like. I think action and emotion are required, and action is pretty much change in time, and emotion is pretty much reaction in time. I also think personability is not simple, and ockham's razor would preclude the trait for this reason.
well if there is no cause outside time, the universe cannot have an ultimate cause, and the theist's position is destroyed. There is a cause outside time if you allow them the position they gain if the cosmological argument is sound.
I suppose I agree. I was thinking of Hick and Hume, but they're seriously in the minority and as Hick's argument (there is one universe we can only use statistics when there are more than one thing to talk about) was essentially Humean, and has been around for centuries, it has probably been scrapped somewhere. I was talking more proving certainly one way or the other, rather than justifying or even proving beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not only is there no argument for the theistic god, which survives close scrutiny, but even if the classical conception of god were proven, the god of religious tradition cannot be proven through logic. It proposes far, far more than merely a personal creator (which irriligious Deists would accept) , or even an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient personal creator (which is technically theistic). It is easier to show it is impossible to justify belief in communication with a deity.
If there is truth, it must conform to the laws of logic. On the hypothesis that some things are true, the atheist can come to their conclusions. It is certainly possible that a personal creator exists, and there is no truth; perhaps the creator has reason to decieve us, I find it impossible to prove that even an omnibenevolent creator would make an intelligible universe. It is possible that there is no truth. But assuming there is truth, the athiest is as entitled to use logic as the theist.
Do you mean, why can't truth exist in a universe without a criterion for differentiating true and false? It can, I spoke too soon; we just wouldn't be able to meaningfully say, "A is true and not A is false" or vice versa if no criteria existed, for any A. We could never know truth if we didn't presupose some means. logic seems to be the best means. I can't really justify logic because i havn't studied it, but i would argue the theist probably hasn't studied it either. I need to read up on it :p
Entity A exists CAN be falsified; If any entity is logically impossible, it can clearly be falsified, because there is no possibility that it could exist!
Statments of the kind, "entity A does not exist" seem impossible to falsify but can work if there is a true dichotomy between entity A and another entity, and the other entity is shown to be logically impossible.
Good point about universal negatives being falsifiable.
I feel like i'm walking into a trap here but some eamples include; a triangular square: something tateless that also has a taste: an invisible visible object
I'd like to know what argument a thiest can give that god (which i define as a personal creator, correct me if you define it differently) justifies deductive logic, inductive logic, objective morality, purpose/meaning, etc. Athiestic justifications of morality (all moral philosophy except divine command) are flawed but better than the god-did-it explanation, I'm sure the same can be said for logic.
I'd also like to know how an abstract personal creator can prove any one religion's god.
Most athiests and many theists seem to think god is unfalsifiable, on the grounds that it isn't coherently defined. However, any coherent definition of god (for example, "personal creator", if personal and creator have both been coherently defined) can be argued against. Dawkins seems fit to argue against mythological gods, which are admittedly much easier to discount and few would deny the falsifiability of.
personal is noticeably missing from that last point, and as knowledge, volition/power, moral responsibility and passions (like love) all require personability, this really proves nothing the athiest wouldn't accept; it simply proves that the universe has a cause, not that there is a god causing it. In fact, I would and have used this argument against a personal creator as the first cause has to be outside time (i don't see how it has to be infinite or one though XD) and action is in time.
a) Logic (Scientific method) demands the ability to verify
b) It is impossible to measure anything separate from the universe
c) A god within the universe, as described in bible, is impossible (I accept this one as true)
c) If God was to still exist it must be separate of the universe.
Therefore arguing about such a god demands to first set aside logic & the scientific method. Any argument for or against such a being must therefore be illogical.
But I have to tell you the claim that the Atheist lacks logic is an interesting concept.
On the one hand they are definitely more logical than a theist who claims god is external to the universe. At least the atheist claim can be proven false, whereas the theist argument, by its construction is not falsifiable, therefore it can't be argued logically, only illogically.
On the other hand, the atheist is illogical in attempting to use logic against a theist.
Again I urge you to define what "existence outside of time" means very clearly, so we have a working definition . I can ask you to demonstrate the nonexistence of "nomtodoidos" or 'square circles' , but I am sure you will first ask for a definition of the word before proceeding.
You just arbitrarily decided that an infinite regress is a bad thing. I claim that it is perfectly satisfactory. I deal with infinities in mathematics all the time and I can perfectly comprehend an infinite regress . Your saying that god is free from a preceding cause is arbitrary. In the same arbitrary fashion you can say that the universe does not need a preceding cause and then your god is dead
You do not prove what you define ! You have to learn the meaning of words. There is not such thing as a square circle, because it has not been even defined. Before I can show that a square circle does not exist, it has to be defined. Similarly before I show that existence outside of time does not exist , YOU have to define what such existence means.
"If anything at all exists there must be something preceding it", exactly, so by your very reasoning , something must have created and preceded your god , otherwise you are contradicting yourself.
You have to learn logical thinking before arguing.
It is not for me to show to you that your talking about a 'square circle' is nonsensical.
You have to demonstrate that a "square circle"
is not a logical contradiction. 'Existence outside of time' is the same nonsense as 'square circle'. By its very definition existence implies time. We cannot talk about the logically absurd. You need to check the definitions of words before you use them. There is such thing as a square circle and there is no such thing as existence outside of existence .
The analysis is actually correct. If you ascribe a quality to a god, that necessarily restricts him. Your god it seems cannot exist without the quality that you ascribe to her. 'God existing outside of time' is a nonsensical statement, not different from a random string of words. Time is the only way we can perceive existence. Talking about something that is unknowable by definition is nonsense.
While I agree that a person willing to endorse an entity that they believe is threatening all humanity in exchange for their own salvation isn't likely to be terribly pleasant to have around, but they do point out that we're being offered the same deal.
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
Why did he use the term Darwinism? Isn't that a straw man term creationists love to use against evolution?
supersmash43 1 year ago
@supersmash43 Darwinism can be misused and turned into a straw man (and often is by the uneducated) but it is also a real term used to describe a particular concept within evolution which Darwin gets the credit.
KingHeathen 1 year ago 8
@KingHeathen you know evolution is accelerating right.
TheLovesoul1 1 year ago
@TheLovesoul1 "evolution" can't "accelerate" as it doesn't move at a given speed. So you'd have to be more specific as to what you meant by that.
KingHeathen 1 year ago 2
@KingHeathen I don't like the word "Darwinism" because it implicitly refers to "social Darwinism," which is a eugenic doctrine in which the laws of natural selection are applied to human society - that people who are socially "successful" are more desirable while those who are not sucessful (poor, disabled, minority races, etc.) are written off as being "bad genetic material" (and often, steriliizied).
It has nothing to do with sience or the ToE, of course.
DaboiaRusselli 8 months ago
@supersmash43 He uses Darwinism because in England, the intellectual big brothers of America, doesn't twist the term around.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
He is well spoken, presentable and handsome. Unfortunately his theories are just nonsense. God is the truth, not Richard Dawkins. Is he the antichrist?
MrGeorgios2020 1 year ago
@MrGeorgios2020
...are you serious?
lifescomicrelief 1 year ago
@MrGeorgios2020 Can you spell 'hypocrit'?
tafftastic 1 year ago
@tafftastic I don't know if HE can....but YOU can't! ; )
It's "hypocrite"...I have no idea why they put an e on the end, but they do.
(Sorry...couldn't resist, the irony was too funny)
KingHeathen 1 year ago 4
@KingHeathen I know, it was a joke! ;-)
tafftastic 1 year ago
If Christianity is nothing more than a construct of man- if it is not true- then you're absolutely right. Saying a person should be punished for going against it is the epitome of moral bankrupcy.But...would that be the case if it's true? That's where the issue lies. You can't make these statements until you establish the falsehood of Christian beliefs.(As for your statistic, even if it were true what's your point?Not everyone who believes in a god is Christian.)
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
ricky, don't cast your pearls before swine. ananiasacts is simply beyond the point of reason and entroaching into outright hatred for "filty Christians". I'm not sure what kind of experience you've had with christians in the past, anan, but when you lower yourself to stereotyping an entire group of people for the actions of a few, then you've no place the intellectual ring- it is no place for venting such frustrations.Maybe you should take the time to get to know some real christians first.
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
I have absolutley nothing against Christians.
1990ricky1990 2 years ago
@Kodiaksaint, The ideology itself is morally bankrupt. Blasphemy and apostasy are thought crimes. No decent person could accept the idea that another should be punished for something they think. No decent person would wish to have full and complete responsibility for their actions to be transferred to someone else. Criminals love that idea though, which perhaps explains why there are so few atheists behind bars (less that 1/4 of 1% in America.) I notice you don't respond to my reasons.
ananiasacts 2 years ago 2
humans are like novelists. Constantly evolving and refining their work. When we were less experienced we came up with religion. Now that we are wiser we have balled it up, thrown it in the bin, and moved on. Still refining our ideas.
Religious ppl are not helping by waving the tattered old idea in our faces and telling us to go backwards.
1990ricky1990 2 years ago 2
@1990ricky1990, I get the feeling that some people really are extraordinarily cowardly, selfish, petty, lazy, wicked, or something like that because there is no way that a decent thoughtful person would ever even want to have full responsibility for all of their mistakes taken away from them. The very idea is such a deep affront to our innate sense of justice I just don't see how so many people could possibly endorse it. I'm guessing that's why they have to start with very young kids to sell it.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
I'm not sure I understand your point. In what way does being religous take away responsability for mistakes.
In fact, surely religious people take full responsability for their mistakes and believe they will be judged by the creator.
Are you reffering to the b?lief that satan (or equivalent) is responsible for causing people to sin?
1990ricky1990 2 years ago
@1990ricky1990, Here's how BFfootballDude puts it: "Well Christianity teaches that all people are depraved, sinful, and justifiably heading to hell, and the only way to reverse this course is to willfully accept Jesus Christ as the only way to forgiveness and eternal life. Everyone is innately wicked and sinful, without exception. Jesus said that if you look upon another person with lust, you are an adulterer."
I think he sums it up the filthy Christian perspective quite accurately.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
I draw the line at referring to christian's beliefs at filthy. There are two kinds of athiest:
1.ones who respectfully disagree with religious faiths based on logical thinking.
2.ones who have a vendetta against religions and insult and disrespect peoples beliefs.
I'm afraid you fall into the latter category; based on what I've heard. I think you're self-assumed supperiority over religious thinkers is dissapointing... a little disgusting frankly. We are NOT on the same wavelength.
1990ricky1990 2 years ago
Comment removed
gondolacrescent5 2 years ago
@gondolacrescent5, I read it many years ago. Filthy sophistry deliberately engineered to help readers hate people. It's what convinced me that it's not enough to just be indoctrinated as a child--a person must be genuinely dishonest and somewhat mean to endorse Christianity. I think religious people genuinely hate the most beautiful property of decent people--integrity. I just disagree with you and think every atheist should read his tripe: makes it easier to see that it's not about god at all.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
Comment removed
gondolacrescent5 2 years ago
@gondolacrescent5, I read it like 25 years ago maybe. So I don't remember much past what I've recalled already. It doesn't surprise me that a religious person would miss all of that. Gosh, you folks believe its possible to sin merely by thinking. You believe its actually desirable to have someone else take responsibility for your mistakes. Such ideas appeal only to criminals and the wicked. Obviously you're going to miss morally bankrupt perspectives because you actually are an immoral person.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
Comment removed
gondolacrescent5 2 years ago
@gondolacrescent5, Again, you completely avoided by points. This is why I find it so easy to condemn religion as a malevolent fraud. Even you folks realize that the ideas it promulgates (like thought crimes) are indefensible and morally reprehensible. That's why you refuse to discuss it and instead look for sophistic arguments that merely cloud and confuse the real issues. Defend the first commandment if you wish to prove you aren't simply a phony.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
Comment removed
gondolacrescent5 2 years ago
@gondolacrescent5, I don't like beating up you folks. I wrote a blog essay to explain that religion could easily become our best invention with just one small change. But the reality of our times make it pretty clear that the conflict between religious groups (that ironically claim to worship the same deity) has become simply intolerable. That's why I believe it is important to 'rub your noses in it' wherever the opportunity arises. Religion has enjoyed immunity from criticism for far too long.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
Comment removed
gondolacrescent5 2 years ago
@gondolacrescent5, Decent people don't run from their mistakes. They try to redress them. Deleting all of your posts only proves you don't have much integrity and pretty much confirms what I claimed earlier about that book you love so much. And then closing with a lie only demonstrates how meaningless honesty is to someone like you. I sure hope you've learned something here and don't continue to just waste people's time.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
If I'm here for four score years then I cease to exist, logic says I should live it up, since all existence is absurd anyway. Why leave a "legacy?" It won't make any difference to me since i won't exist.
It's a selfish worldview, and is the only one that pure Naturalism can lead to. Any ideas that it has about nobility, dignity and goodness are just personal constructs that don't really exist but are there to make usfeel better.
Show me how you get ideals of nobility in an absurd existence.
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
If you don't know the answer to this by now then you are a psychopath.
You and I both know this not to be the case which is why I'm done casing your rabbit of bad logic that even YOU don't believe is true.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
1. It's a Socratic question.
2. It is perfectly obvious. The simple truth is that Naturalism can only lead to narcissism, as existence has no ultimate meaning (after all how can something resulting purely by fluke from chance and mistakes have "purpose"?) I believe we as humans do have purpose. I also believe that naturalism can only logically lead to the opposite conclussion, so yes I do believe what i've said.Please answer my question instead of dodging it.
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
Yet as a naturalist...I'm NOT a narcissist.
Therefore you are wrong.
What part of "done" didn't you understand?
KingHeathen 2 years ago 3
Because I recognize I have a finite time on this earth I should make the most of the time I'm here.
I should make this world as good as I can make it because this is the only one I will exist on.I should make connections and meaningful relationships with those here because those connections and works are the only indeligible marks you leave when you go.There is no perfect paradise unless we make one here.I define the purpose to my life, not scripture,not fear,me.Any more questions?
gamesmaster35 2 years ago
Why, yes, as a matter of fact.
Why?
I should make the most of it here. I should make ti good. Very noble thoughts, but in the end naturalism leaves no room for nobility and self-sacrifice. It proclaims a universe where existence is absurd-there is no meaning, no point. We came about through chaos and chance, and we will end the same way. So while I agree with what you said above, I don't see how naturalism can bring one to that conclusion.
Any questions?
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
@Kodiaksaint, What a filthy person you must be!
ananiasacts 2 years ago
Yet we see all around us everyday examples of people who sacrifice their lives for those less fortunate for themselves, even though they get no benefit from their good works besides the simple pleasure good brings (a pleasure that according to your worldview is foolish since it has no tangable value).Naturalism has no way of explaining such acts of selfless kindness.Yet we admire those people.This tell us that there is something more to morality than what is beneficial to myself. What is it?
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
If I sacrifice myself for my children, it IS for me. Again, how do you not see this as obvious? It's better for the young to carry on than the old. Through EMPATHY, I understand that it's best for a group of 10 to survive than for just one.
Other animals do this too. What god are they trying to please? There are some animals whose young will EAT EACH OTHER! Others that murder the smaller siblings. This is the world your god "designed". Where is the morality in that?
KingHeathen 2 years ago
1: For a parent to sacrifice himself for his children is among the noblest acts a human can do. But tell me this; when in that situation, are you thinking, "Oh how will sacrificing myself benefit me?" Of course not, all your thoughts are on your children. There is nothing selfbenefiting from that, it's an entirely selfless act (and remember selflessness has no place in a world where only the fit survive).
2: As to your second comment, you know what I'd say to that. email me if you don't.
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
You aren't going to live forever. The closest way you can leave a permanent mark is via your off spring. If you can't see that leaving progeny is a self interest you may simply lack the intelligence and lack a sense of ethics to debate morality. You must have some type of retarded development if you believe that the most fundamental moral axiom, of sacrificing even our lives for our children, is the noblest thing you can do.
TheSoSoAgnostic 2 years ago
First, your first statement goes back to naturalism vs intelligent design.
Second, I'm sorry if I insulted you in some way by the insinuation that it is one of (I didn't say THE) noblest things a parent (I didn't say everyone) can do is sacrifice themselves for their children when it is necessary (I didn't say all the time).
Third, I specifically said that there is nothing wrong with doing something good when it helps you; the problem arises when self gain becomes your sole motivation.
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
1. The thoughts are on PRESERVATION whether that is preservation of myself or my family...which is part of our genetic disposition. It has EVOLVED into our mentality. You still don't see the blatant obviousness of this and it stuns me that you think you have a case.
2. I have no interest in emailing you. I'm also not psychic, therefore I prefer not to presume such things. You can answer it here, or I don't care.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
I'm confused. At times you seem to be flying the flag for naturalism - at other times you appear to be pointing out its flaws. What are your beliefs?
I think you're right in pointing out that the only way to live PURELY by naturalism is to be utterly selfish. However I'm not sure if you're saying this means we should reject selflessness or naturalism.
PM me. Yours is an interesting perspective
1990ricky1990 2 years ago
@1990ricky1990, It's about discovering truth. That's what made us, and what enables us to prosper and grow--discovering and understanding the nature of the universe we are part of. We get that understanding from our lack of faith, and have discovered a process that almost mechanically grinds out these truths--its called "the scientific method." There is simply no chance that the god of truth would wish to be respected; that could only hamper our capacity to know him well. He'd want skeptics.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
Strikes me the genes are looking after themselves. I doubt if your thoughts even come into it. Ever seen an earwig looking after her eggs?
gamesbok 1 year ago
'And what is good Phadrus, and what is not good? Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?';
Socrates.
It's actually very simple. What is more 'fit' to survive? The society of rampamt selfishness, or the society of values of compassion, empathy, sympathy, trust, understanding and community spirit?'
Religions you can take your pick, or not.
Evolution you cannot reject, because it's not simply a truth of emperical science, it's a truth of LOGIC, and you cannot escape it.
gamesbok 2 years ago
Again, you are ignoring the heart of the issue. If Christianity is truly a fabrication of mankind than you're right, it doesn't matter which one you pick. But if it is real, then what?
As for evolution being the truth of LOGIC, that would depend on who you quote. There is enough disparity between evolution and everyday reality that the LOGIC of it can be easily thrown into question.
Socrates is right. We all have an engrained sense of good and evil. Question is, where does it come from?
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
No, evolution cannot be called into question. It's implicit in the words reproduction, variation and selection. There is no escaping it. It may not be the whole story, although increasingly it seems that it is, but what is beyond doubt is that it's unavoidable.
I wasn't quoting anyone.
gamesbok 2 years ago
Then let me ask you this.
Gravity is a fact. i see it when I jump.
Light is a fact. i see it period.
Sound is a fact. I hear it.
Obama is president. I can see that.
Brown hair is darker than blonde hair. I can see that.
All these facts are known as facts because they are observed in their fullest every day. Evolution in the sense of macroevolution has never been observed in its fullest. It's an assumption based on evidence that can be viewed to support other theories.
How is it a fact?
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
All the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic ... [which are] discoverable by mere thought ... Matters of fact, which are the second object of human reason, are not ascertained in the same manner; nor is our evidence of their truth, however great, of a like nature with the foregoing.
- An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
gamesbok 2 years ago
Hume's fork is often stated in such a way that statements are divided up into two types:
Statements about ideas - these are analytic, necessary statements that are knowable a priori.
Statements about the world - these are synthetic, contingent, and knowable a posteriori.
Evolution is 'A Priori' true, it's true because of the meaning of the words reproduction, variation and selection.
'Microevolution' is meaningless.
gamesbok 2 years ago
'gravity' is not a fact, it is a word that we use to describe a phenomenon of the attraction of masses.
zanzibartraveler09 2 years ago
@Kodiaksaint
"Evolution in the sense of macroevolution has never been observed"
Well then I take it you have never seen the fossil record...
Evolution makes several predictions, if anyone of these predictions is wrong then Evolution is also wrong. For example evolution predicts the Whale evolved from a land mammal which gradually became sea dwelling, If we don't find fossils which show this transition Evolution is in trouble...Yet there are 10 different transitional fossils for the Whale.
JolleyEFC 1 year ago
So let me get this straight. We find a fossil of a whale. We find other fossils that are not whale, but because they has some similar features, this is absolute proof that the whale evolved.
Sorry, not seeing it. Could it possibly, just maybe within the realm of possibility, be that these are simply different species altogether that don't have anything to do with each other, and the observer's personal preconceptions shape the way he or she views the evidence?
Kodiaksaint 1 year ago
@Kodiaksaint
"but because they has some similar features, this is absolute proof that the whale evolved"
No of course not, Evolution makes several predictions for example the whale changing from a land mammal to a sea one. Now if we only ever found a few extinct species which showed this transition I admit that I would not be convinced. But what convinces me is that EVERY SINGLE transition that Evolution predicts is found in the fossil record. Not just one or two, every single one.
JolleyEFC 1 year ago
Again, evidence has no voice of its own. The presuppositions of the observer will shape how he or she views it. When you see the various fossils, you see proof of transition. When I see the various fossils, I see proof of a common designer, much like a painter's paintings will have similar traits. What I'm asking for is not what the evidence MIGHT say about evolution- what I'm asking is for empirical evidence for evolution, something evolutionists claim is in abundance, but have yet to provide.
Kodiaksaint 1 year ago
@Kodiaksaint
Now again I do no have enough room to properly deal with your "same designer" argument therefore I will have to refer you to this video which does a much better job than I ever could of showing why this is not a valid argument...
Search for (in youtube):
"Why "Same Designer, Same Genes" is not a valid argument"
(With speech marks)
JolleyEFC 1 year ago
@Kodiaksaint And when testing of fossils using one of the 100+ dating methods confirm the findings of each and other individual test? And when microbiologists confirm that DNA removed from those cells still able to reveal their genetic code confirm the other 100+ dating methods? And when evolutionary biologists come up with a chronological order of evolution, which in turn is confirmed by the other 100+ dating methods? This is presupposition? You're guessing. That's not very scientific my friend
tafftastic 1 year ago
@Kodiaksaint
This can also be true for any transition...from reptiles to birds, from ape to man. Whatever you want to bring up there are fossils which support this transition and there has NEVER been a fossil found to date which disproves Evolution...
So going on your logic...Evolution is a fact. I see it not only when I look at the fossil record but when I look at genetics, geology, chemistry, etc.
JolleyEFC 1 year ago
I don't recall saying there has ever been a fossil that disproves evolution. That's like saying I found a fossil that disproves God- it just doesn't stand up to reason. What I'm saying is that finding fossils that have some similar featuers is not empirical proof of macroevolution- seeing an animal transition into a completely different species under observable circumstances is empirical proof. Something which has yet to be done.
Kodiaksaint 1 year ago
@Kodiaksaint
Part 1 of 2
"That's like saying I found a fossil that disproves God- it just doesn't stand up to reason"
This is where you are wrong my friend since we CAN find a fossil which disproves evolution, but God on the other hand cannot be disproved ever.
For example I don't know if you are aware of Kirk Cameron's famous "Croca duck" but if we ever found a "Croca duck" in the fossil record Evolution from that point on would be invalid since...
(Continued...)
JolleyEFC 1 year ago
@Kodiaksaint
Part 2 of 2
Evolution shows that a "Croca duck" is impossible and predicts we will never find it. Every single fossil that has ever been found is compatible and better still PREDICTED by evolution.
Not one single scientific peer reviewed paper has ever been published which disagrees with evolution and yet there are hundreds to support it. Why is this??
JolleyEFC 1 year ago
@Kodiaksaint
"Seeing an animal transition into a completely different species under observable circumstances is empirical proof"
So what you are saying is unless we directly observe it, it dosen't exist?? Do you believe in Black Holes in that case?
So you walk in on a crime scene there is DNA evidence all over the place, you have found the murder weapon with the victims blood, all the evidence points to this man committing murder, yet you dont convict him because you didnt see it happen..
JolleyEFC 1 year ago
Are the Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) and the Lesser Black Backed Gull (Larus fuscus) different species? (Hint, ring species).
Your claim about never having been observed is not true. Not the Italian Rock Lizard developments in islands off Croatia for eg.
gamesbok 1 year ago
Well somebody certainly has a lot to say! :) First of all, I don't recall anybody ever saying that anybody without God can't be moral. Where did you get that ridiculous idea? Our point is that an atheist has no logical basis for the morality he claims to have.
Evolution being true has nothing to do with emperical evidence? And no, the empirical evidence does not support evolution. You say it does over and over, but give no examples. Are you just parroting what others before you have said?
Kodiaksaint 1 year ago
THere have been many socities that have been highly moral without resort for divine Authority for their morals.
Morals evolve because they make society more fit.
Given a dynamic system with evidence for reproduction, variation and selection, and I'm sure you agree the Earth represents such a system, evolution becomes a priori true, it needs no further emperical evidence. It's inevitable, because of the meaning of the words.
gamesbok 1 year ago
I have given examples, but you seem to read only what suits you.
For further examples try Theodossius Dubzhansky 'Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of Evolution'. Good practising Christian was Dubzhansky, by the way.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@Kodiaksaint
I just noticed that you completely ignored and failed to address the points I made towards you, this speaks volumes to me, yes I am laughing at you.
Secondly the only argument you seem to have judging by your conversation with Gamesbok is to do with Morality which is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from science. Evolution is science and since you could not address my points because you simply cannot you go off talking about something else.
Yet the bible is very moral isn't it?? LOL!!!
JolleyEFC 1 year ago
My statement about Evolution being necessarily true, a thuth of logic, has nothing to do with emperical evidence, although ALL emperical evidence supports evolution (even Behe is an evolutionist). Evolution is a priori true in and dynamic system that displays reproduction, variation and selection, and you can watch it any day.
We all hav an ingrained sense of good and evil because it evolved, as indeed it must.
gamesbok 1 year ago
If we went purely by what was 'fit' to survive, then morality as we know it would alter completely. Compassion? Hey, i don't care about you as long as you help me. empathy, sympathy? Heck, it's all about my survival, i'll only stick with you as far as you'll help me survive.Morality is more than just about action-it is also about motive.
Were those who helped hide Jews from Nazis doing what would help them survive? Or the underground railroad? No,but we consider their acts the highest morality.
Kodiaksaint 1 year ago
@Kodiaksaint
I cannot believe you just brought up morality in a science topic. Science has nothing to do with morality they are totally separate things.
Science basically makes a hypothesis which is backed up by evidence...the conclusion of the hypothesis is irrelevant as long as it is supported by evidence.
I also suspect you are confusing evolution with atheism. One of my subscriptions is a Christian who makes youtube videos defending evolution. Are you calling him immoral??
JolleyEFC 1 year ago
(See my response to gamesbok)
Kodiaksaint 1 year ago
It isn't about your survival or the survival of any individual, it's about the survival of a society. Are you being deliberately stupid?
"'It's actually very simple. What is more 'fit' to survive? The society of rampamt selfishness, or the society of values of compassion, empathy, sympathy, trust, understanding and community spirit?'"
Perhaps you should read a little Plato, Epiouros or Aristotle, all of whom wrote extensively on ethics and none of them resorted to 'divine' authority.
gamesbok 1 year ago
It's an evolved sense of justice.
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
- Albert Einstein
gamesbok 1 year ago 10
90% of statistic on YOUTUBE comments are fabricated lol
yeah cause hitler had a good old believe in the God of love, hence why he picked out the weak, and the the jewish
Oh, and of course the crusade were all about what the sermon i=on the mount was based upon.
turning the other cheek and showing love to others ...oops it was about power and money and greed covered over by mans rubbish excuse.... its for the church.
have you heard about NATIONAL ATHIEST DAY?
april 1st
macharper 2 years ago
"90% of statistic on YOUTUBE comments are fabricated"
Oh, the irony!
KingHeathen 2 years ago
lol okay i have to admit that is funny
but he does raise good points. A lot of things have been done in the name of religion that were not true to what the religion really was. I'm sure you'd say the same about atheism- that a lot of things done in the name of atheism weren't truly representative.
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
nothing that I can think of has ever been done "in the name of atheism"...so I don't think we are on the same page at all.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
Let me rephrase. No one does evil shouting "atheism live forever!" What I meant was the evil done with an atheistic perspective, which ultimately states that we humans are nothing more than blobs of genetic matter- complex matter, sure, but just matter nontheless. This removes any intrinsic value from human life. (and no, society as a whole didn't originally decide in intrinsic human value- it was those who believed in God who were historically the greatest advocates of humanitarianism.)
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
you are still wrong...it's ludacris to think someone would say (as so many Christians pathetically argue they would) "Since there is no god, I'm going to rape someone." Or "Fred, there is no god, so let's have gay sex!" The acts they did were for OTHER reasons not tied to a belief or lack thereof in any deities.
The same CAN NOT be said for religion. There ARE cases where it is said "He doesn't believe in our god....KILL HIM!"
KingHeathen 2 years ago
Don't they? I'm not saying everyone's like that. But I am saying that an atheist simply has no basis for morality. And don't throw the 'morality is decided by society' cliche. We've seen throughout history that society is easily influenced into committing atrocoius acts. And yes, some religions do say what you gave as an example. Even more do the opposite; "Oh he doesn't believe in God, we must love him and pray for him."
Sounds pretty horrible.
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
Our morality is based on the same thing yours is...empathy. The understanding that what hurts me would hurt someone else and for that reason it shouldn't be done.
If you think that you get your morality from the Bible, then I ask you....
Would you consider it moral to stone someone to death for picking up firewood on the sabbath? Your Bible has no problem with it. I find it repulsive. You?
KingHeathen 2 years ago
1. Why not? If there is no overarching moral law, then who cares if it hurts someone?the fact is that you can't base morality on a feeling.That's the difference between us;you have no real basis for what ought to be.Sure you know what it is, but you can't explain why it should be.Empathy is nothing to go on;I feel empathy towards the the family of the murderer who is about to be executed; so since empathy is the basis for what is right, justice be hanged do what empathy demands.
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
2. about your sabbath comment look at the vid "Re:What if God disappeared?(what if god existed?)" He answers it better than I can.
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
If you don't understand the answer to that question, then stay the hell away from my children. You would have to be a seriously sick bastard not to understand the very basic concept of "causing suffering is bad for society." Think about it...I hurt his family, they hurt mine. Mutually NOT beneficial. I help them, they help me...MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL! No god required, it's cause/result. Action/Consequence. This is stuff children figure out on their own with no concept of a god.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
But don't you see? If that's the case, then all motivation for doing good is ultimately out of pure selfishness; i don't do bad because I will get hurt, I do good because I will benefit. That's all the world has to look forward to in a reality where we are all that there is- actions that may be good, but don't have any true spirit of real goodness in them.
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
What are you talking about? Your alternative is to not do bad for fear of hell. How is that any different? You just trade real, daily lives consequences for fantastic imaginary afterlife consequences. You trade the feeling of helping someone better themselves for a reward in Heaven after you die.
Besides, SO WHAT!? What's wrong with helping others because it also helps you? What's wrong with not doing something because it causes harm?
KingHeathen 2 years ago
If that's what you think then you don't understand our theology as well as you think. And there's nothing wrong with helping others when it helps yourself. The problem is when that self gain is your sole motivation. So now you're going on about the "feeling of helping others"? Where did that come from? How does that fit into a world where the only reason we help others is because we gain something from them? theism has a basis for such emotions, yet naturalism can't explain it.
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
Actually, you are dead wrong and even backwards. Your religion (if you believe your family will go to heaven if they die) should DESIRE that they die sooner. It would be SELFISH of you NOT to want them to go to heaven faster, right?
The survival of a society is DEPENDENT on empathy, compassion, order, etc. Who said there was one "sole motivation?" Stop inferring things that aren't said and maybe you'll see why you are missing the obvious here.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
I'm inferirng simple logic. If human beings are nothing more than a randomly-contrived blob of genetic material, there is no intrinsic value in one. I agree that the idea of morality is what society depends on in order to function. What I'm saying is that naturalism has no answer to why we should care about things that don't directly apply to us.
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
you just said that society depends on people acting "morally"....we'd both agree that the existence of society is beneficial to the continued existence of man.
Therefore to ask for an answer from naturalism for why we should act "morally" is just....
redundant.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
Good point. Let me rephrase; we both agree society depends on people acting morally.
But if I will cease to exist, why should I care about society? Or the future when I'm gone for that matter?
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
Ther atheist values his relationship with you because that's the highest relationship he's got. Someone who places his relationship with some fancyful deity on a higher footing cannot be so trusted.
gamesbok 1 year ago
'....it was those who believed in God who were historically the advocates of greatest humanitarianism'.
Doesn't seem to be true of Moses, who was a Nazi.
Take Tony Blair. He'll lie to your face, because he has a relationship with God that's more important than his relationship with you. Because he's religious he cannot be trusted.
There have been great religious humanitarians, but as has been said, 'Good men do good and evil men do evil, but for a good man to do evil requires religion'.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok
What a stupid post.
I'm not sure where to start with it.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder Well, make an attempt, because just now all you have is a vacuous insult.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok
For starters it's in very poor taste to call Jewish people Nazi's.
Then there's your prejudicial belief that because a person is religious they can't be trusted.
And lastly there's the stupid quote you stole from Steven Weinberg which Freeman Dyson crushed years ago.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder Just as Zionism is not distinguishable from Nazi philosophy, being an idiology of racial superiority, and utterly amoral to those who believe in natural justice and humanity, so Moses, as the inventor of genocide and racism, must be condemmed. I would trust Desmond Tutu with my life, because I believe in his humanity, but I KNOW Tony Blair lied me into two illegal wars for religious reasons, and no atheist has ever lied to me for religious reasons.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok
You throw around the term Nazi with the flippancy of an undereducated child, and if you truly trusted any theist with your life you would have apologized for your apparent bigotry instead of avoiding the subject, what's more atheists lie all the time to further atheism case in point YOU.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder I am VERY specific when I use the term Nazi, and I can justify it. If you have a point, please make it. I'm tired of your vacuous insults.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok
Yes you use the term at the drop of a hat and then run away crying when called out on your lack of taste.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder Einstein, after the Deir Yassin massacre, in which Jews killed more than 250 Palestinian civilians in 1948, signed a letter to the New York Times describing the Herut Party (aka Likud) as "closely akin in its organisation, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties".
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok
And if Einstein stuck his hand in a pot of boiling water does that make it a good idea?
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder I'm not aware of Einstein ever sticking his hand in a pot of boiling water. I am aware of Einstein publishing in just one year (1905) 5 papers, any one of which could have won him the Noble Prize, but a pan of boiling water? Your fantasy world has defeated me yet again.
I haven't run anywhere. If you don't have substance it's incumbent on you to retire.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok
argumentum ad verecundiam.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder An arguement you were perfectly ready to use in your 'pot of boiling water' fantasy. If you have substance I have yet to see it.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok
Nice Non Sequitur.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder Still waiting for the substance.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok
Wait all you like you derailed the dialog.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder Sorry, but it was you that derailed the dialog. He gave a specific example of what he was saying and you responded with argumentum absurdium. He called you out on in and then you just kept listing various fallacies without ever addressing what he ACTUALLY said.
I'm not taking sides in the original argument, but all you are doing here is avoiding the issue. If you feel you've already made your point and just want the last word, then it's just silly.
KingHeathen 1 year ago
@gamesbok Please explain to me how Moses invented racism. His race was condemned to slavery (so the bible says) due to racism... which was before his birth. So explain that to me. I just dislike it when people make such blunt statements that aren't true, just to villainize a biblical character. The stories aren't the problem, it's the people who justify immorality with the stories.
itbevee 1 year ago
@itbevee As historically the time of the catptivty can only have been during Hyksos domination they were masters, not slaves. There was a subclass, the Habiru, of landless agricultural workers. But the people of Moses were strange slaves, and they had considerable credit, which they maxed out before deliberately defaulting. You're still left with Moses, on the run for murder, inventing a 'master race', enforcing the idiology with violence, and a genocidal land grab through Cannan. Nazi.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@Kodiaksaint, listen to some of Steven Pinker's work. He explains it well. The fact is that rationality itself is the source of morality. It flows straight from communication because the upside benefit of cooperation is so fantastically more adaptive than competition. There may well be people so morally indolent or bankrupt they lack the sense of decency most everyone is born with. But, if that were true, religious scum wouldn't need to indoctrinate such young kids to perpetuate their myth.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
@Kodiaksaint That is just a bizarre, illogical leap:
Random origin=no intrinsic value.
I would say the sun has intrinsic value, as does our atmosphere. Everything on planet Earth that is a necessary precondition of life has intrinsic value from the perspective of we living things.
But here's the real problem: who cares? We ARE the result of natural processes (not random ones, by the way), so there's no point in discussing the alternative.
TBlake34 1 year ago
@TBlake34 Now who's making bizarre illogical leaps? First, we may as well stop saying intrinsic as we seem to have conflicting definitions of the word. Second, you're right. If we're all there is, then there's no point in caring about anything. We live we die the end. (Not random? Of course it's random- if it wasn't designed, then that's the only option available)There is a point under one condition-if its true which is the whole discussion
Kodiaksaint 1 year ago
An yet atheist societies, like those in Brazil who totally deny any spirit realm, still produce moral socities?
I see no basis for your arguements.
gamesbok 1 year ago
The atheist values his relationship with you because that's the highest relationship he's got. Someone who places his relationship with some fancyful deity on a higher footing cannot be so trusted.
gamesbok 1 year ago
your words dont make any sense whatsoever. like listening to Britney Spears trying to give a sermon
BeerJBeerJ 2 years ago
90% of serial killers are fundamentalist christians (mostly catholic and southern baptist).
Hitler talked about his christian faith all the time, and wrote about it in MK.
Every 2 weeks I see a news story about some pastor who killed his kids because god told him to.
Crusades and Inquisitions are not perversions of christian doctrine.
They are the full expression of christianity in it's truest form.
FistInTheAir420 2 years ago 3
If you are going to say things like "90% of serial killers are fundamentalist christians (mostly catholic and southern baptist)" you really do need to site you're sources. It doesn't matter whether it is true or not.
mpalssonur 2 years ago
He seems like a very sweet intelligent man -his life story made me smile.
mmang0 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
in a 2008 study researchers found that atheists are the most untrusted group in north america and europe.
with good reason, they also found that atheists had the highest crime rate of any group in north america and europe.
If humans are going to survive on earth we need to protect our morals, not discard them for science.
madmovie6 2 years ago
LMAO!!!!!!!!
Where did you get this info? Highest crime rate? TRY AGAIN!!!!!! Atheists make up .2% of the prison population.....POINT FREAKIN' TWO!!!!!
You lose, game over, don't even bother trying again.
You=uber fail!
KingHeathen 2 years ago
saw another video, says atheists are least likely to get divorced too. seems wierd theyre being 'joined by god' in marriage and they dont believe in it. :p
jackspunge 2 years ago
i know.... its probably coz atheist couples dont look for a divine solution to their problems.
"going to church shuts my wife up"
"prayer will give my husband a bigger dick"
Zoaguyver 2 years ago 13
i agree, a saudi said the divorce rate was 70% there
mpd19666 2 years ago
Are you serious?! The most devout christians you will ever fin are in the heart of any state penitentiary! This is a FACT! And the reason is no matter how terrible your crime was, everyone feels the sting of regret. Christianity gives people a way out, there's this "sacrificial lamb" who died to absolve us of guilt and accountability. I don't know where you're getting your facts, but it doesn't take much more than watching "dog the bounty hunter" to see you're grossly miss-informed.
tjweiler1 2 years ago 5
Could Madmovie6 please back up his claim that atheists have the highest crime rate? Where did you find this information?
Pezzab5 2 years ago 6
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Where did you get that bullshit from?
Theistic groups are far more prone to crime and anybody who has looked up the statistical evidence knows it!
DevJL 2 years ago 7
you need to site youre sources it doesn't matter whether it is true or not (I think you're right).
mpalssonur 2 years ago
True
DevJL 2 years ago
Comment removed
jvanek01 2 years ago
So, does god get his morals elsewhere or does he choose the morals?
If he gets his morals elsewhere, then morality exists out of god, so I doubt you would choose that.
But if god chooses the morals, why didn't he pick other morals or even different morals? He would have just choose them just because. And his rationality/omniscience not be there. Which is one of god's attributes. So, it wouldn't be good to follow DCT.
KellyMacCornmac 2 years ago
Kant and Hume's response to the OA are both weak but there are others, such as Oppys. The God of religion cannot be proven through argument, only a Diestic god. All the arguments have to be true for a Theistic god to be true, let alone the theistic god of any one interpritation of any one faith. How Is "God" free from the anomaly rule in a way the universe would not be. I see no flaw in my response to the design argument, point one out if one exists.
unassumption 2 years ago
There is no proof that objective morality exists. Eurethro has not been countered; either the morality divine command theory brings is purely arbitrary (and in no way objective) or it is based on some underlying maxim that would exist without God. The Utility Principle and The Categorical Imperative, flawed as they both are, seem to me much better guides to an objective morality than Divine Command, which we can never justifiably believe we know, anyway.
unassumption 2 years ago
Design argument(s): naturalistic (and alternative non-natural) explanations of complexity, evidence of design is in our heads, infinite regress (no way of stopping it doesn't apply to the universe too)
Ontological argument(s); existence is not a predicate
Moral argument: no objective morality, atheistic explanations of objective morality
etc. for other
The closest to a defeater of all is that, in all the arguments (including cosmological), the god is more Diestic or Pantheistic than theistic
unassumption 2 years ago
Where did i say there was "one" "clear" "defeater," I said the arguments fail, perhaps i didn't say it clearly enough but that's youtube's fault for comment limits. There are numerous weaknesses in the theistic arguments, some of them very strong others less so, that mean they are all effectively useless, at least unless you presuppose god.
unassumption 2 years ago
I agree that the first cause exists outside time, but I believe change (which would be precluded by this) is necessary for personability. But as personability hasn't fully been defined I can't really argue the point as well as I would like. I think action and emotion are required, and action is pretty much change in time, and emotion is pretty much reaction in time. I also think personability is not simple, and ockham's razor would preclude the trait for this reason.
unassumption 2 years ago
I do not see how cause can exist without being inserted in the context of time.
Cause implies a temporal sequence between cause and effect.
If time is contained within the effect, how can there be a cause? What is 'outside time'?
Nibor7301 2 years ago
well if there is no cause outside time, the universe cannot have an ultimate cause, and the theist's position is destroyed. There is a cause outside time if you allow them the position they gain if the cosmological argument is sound.
unassumption 2 years ago
I suppose I agree. I was thinking of Hick and Hume, but they're seriously in the minority and as Hick's argument (there is one universe we can only use statistics when there are more than one thing to talk about) was essentially Humean, and has been around for centuries, it has probably been scrapped somewhere. I was talking more proving certainly one way or the other, rather than justifying or even proving beyond a reasonable doubt.
unassumption 2 years ago
Not only is there no argument for the theistic god, which survives close scrutiny, but even if the classical conception of god were proven, the god of religious tradition cannot be proven through logic. It proposes far, far more than merely a personal creator (which irriligious Deists would accept) , or even an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient personal creator (which is technically theistic). It is easier to show it is impossible to justify belief in communication with a deity.
unassumption 2 years ago
If there is truth, it must conform to the laws of logic. On the hypothesis that some things are true, the atheist can come to their conclusions. It is certainly possible that a personal creator exists, and there is no truth; perhaps the creator has reason to decieve us, I find it impossible to prove that even an omnibenevolent creator would make an intelligible universe. It is possible that there is no truth. But assuming there is truth, the athiest is as entitled to use logic as the theist.
unassumption 2 years ago
Why can't it exist in such a universe?
Nibor7301 2 years ago
Do you mean, why can't truth exist in a universe without a criterion for differentiating true and false? It can, I spoke too soon; we just wouldn't be able to meaningfully say, "A is true and not A is false" or vice versa if no criteria existed, for any A. We could never know truth if we didn't presupose some means. logic seems to be the best means. I can't really justify logic because i havn't studied it, but i would argue the theist probably hasn't studied it either. I need to read up on it :p
unassumption 2 years ago
"BECAUSE IT IS LOGICAL FALSIFIABLE "
No it isn't. Statements of the kind: "Entity A exists" or "Group of entities A exists" cannot be falsified.
That's simple aristotelic logic.
Nibor7301 2 years ago
Entity A exists CAN be falsified; If any entity is logically impossible, it can clearly be falsified, because there is no possibility that it could exist!
Statments of the kind, "entity A does not exist" seem impossible to falsify but can work if there is a true dichotomy between entity A and another entity, and the other entity is shown to be logically impossible.
unassumption 2 years ago
Could you give me a few examples of entities that are logically impossible?
As for "entity A does not exist" I do not see how it would seem impossible to falsify. To falsify the sentence you merely need to find entity A.
Nibor7301 2 years ago
Perhaps I think on far too simple terms.
Nibor7301 2 years ago
maybe i do too...
unassumption 2 years ago
Good point about universal negatives being falsifiable.
I feel like i'm walking into a trap here but some eamples include; a triangular square: something tateless that also has a taste: an invisible visible object
unassumption 2 years ago
I'd like to know what argument a thiest can give that god (which i define as a personal creator, correct me if you define it differently) justifies deductive logic, inductive logic, objective morality, purpose/meaning, etc. Athiestic justifications of morality (all moral philosophy except divine command) are flawed but better than the god-did-it explanation, I'm sure the same can be said for logic.
I'd also like to know how an abstract personal creator can prove any one religion's god.
unassumption 2 years ago
Most athiests and many theists seem to think god is unfalsifiable, on the grounds that it isn't coherently defined. However, any coherent definition of god (for example, "personal creator", if personal and creator have both been coherently defined) can be argued against. Dawkins seems fit to argue against mythological gods, which are admittedly much easier to discount and few would deny the falsifiability of.
unassumption 2 years ago
personal is noticeably missing from that last point, and as knowledge, volition/power, moral responsibility and passions (like love) all require personability, this really proves nothing the athiest wouldn't accept; it simply proves that the universe has a cause, not that there is a god causing it. In fact, I would and have used this argument against a personal creator as the first cause has to be outside time (i don't see how it has to be infinite or one though XD) and action is in time.
unassumption 2 years ago
Perhaps you would describe it differently.
a) Logic (Scientific method) demands the ability to verify
b) It is impossible to measure anything separate from the universe
c) A god within the universe, as described in bible, is impossible (I accept this one as true)
c) If God was to still exist it must be separate of the universe.
Therefore arguing about such a god demands to first set aside logic & the scientific method. Any argument for or against such a being must therefore be illogical.
Thanos82 2 years ago
Adametc seemed to be replying to me.
But I have to tell you the claim that the Atheist lacks logic is an interesting concept.
On the one hand they are definitely more logical than a theist who claims god is external to the universe. At least the atheist claim can be proven false, whereas the theist argument, by its construction is not falsifiable, therefore it can't be argued logically, only illogically.
On the other hand, the atheist is illogical in attempting to use logic against a theist.
Thanos82 2 years ago
Again I urge you to define what "existence outside of time" means very clearly, so we have a working definition . I can ask you to demonstrate the nonexistence of "nomtodoidos" or 'square circles' , but I am sure you will first ask for a definition of the word before proceeding.
Adamalgorithm 2 years ago
There is nothing wrong with an infinite regress.
You just arbitrarily decided that an infinite regress is a bad thing. I claim that it is perfectly satisfactory. I deal with infinities in mathematics all the time and I can perfectly comprehend an infinite regress . Your saying that god is free from a preceding cause is arbitrary. In the same arbitrary fashion you can say that the universe does not need a preceding cause and then your god is dead
Adamalgorithm 2 years ago
existence by its very definition requires time!
You do not prove what you define ! You have to learn the meaning of words. There is not such thing as a square circle, because it has not been even defined. Before I can show that a square circle does not exist, it has to be defined. Similarly before I show that existence outside of time does not exist , YOU have to define what such existence means.
Adamalgorithm 2 years ago
"If anything at all exists there must be something preceding it", exactly, so by your very reasoning , something must have created and preceded your god , otherwise you are contradicting yourself.
You have to learn logical thinking before arguing.
Adamalgorithm 2 years ago
It is not for me to show to you that your talking about a 'square circle' is nonsensical.
You have to demonstrate that a "square circle"
is not a logical contradiction. 'Existence outside of time' is the same nonsense as 'square circle'. By its very definition existence implies time. We cannot talk about the logically absurd. You need to check the definitions of words before you use them. There is such thing as a square circle and there is no such thing as existence outside of existence .
Adamalgorithm 2 years ago
The analysis is actually correct. If you ascribe a quality to a god, that necessarily restricts him. Your god it seems cannot exist without the quality that you ascribe to her. 'God existing outside of time' is a nonsensical statement, not different from a random string of words. Time is the only way we can perceive existence. Talking about something that is unknowable by definition is nonsense.
Adamalgorithm 2 years ago
lol
zatfa 2 years ago
Why do cowardly traitors have such a bad rap?
While I agree that a person willing to endorse an entity that they believe is threatening all humanity in exchange for their own salvation isn't likely to be terribly pleasant to have around, but they do point out that we're being offered the same deal.
So they have that going for them.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
i like the pan across the audience
thejanizzle 2 years ago
Theres always people hacking in the audience
TheSilentOtaku 2 years ago