Total posts: 3,052
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I don't think it strange to believe that there is an entire world around us that escapes both our innate senses and the senses we have through technology. It seems apparent to me that not only is this possible or likely, but even the evident truth.
I don't agree. Our instruments have not shown us 'an entire world' exists different from the world revealed by our senses. There is only one world, about which we learn something about through our senses, and yet more about through our instruments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
If you were born in North Korea you would worship Kim Jong Un as your god, refute me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
That's not unreasonable. You mean as in 'why am I certain'.
So why am I certain there's no god?
It's largely because I'm an opinonated bigot who won't listen to reason. Why do you think I'm certain?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If I thought it was not true I would not post it.
The ornate and complicated religions of today have their roots in ancient superstitions. Their form and details are the result of historical accidents - if Constantine had lost the battle of the milvian bridge we'd never have heard of Christianity to name just one of thousands of turning points.
The story of how the god of a small obscure semitic tribe came to dominate european history for almost 2000 years is a fascinating one. You tell it your way, I'll tell it the secular way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Cause and effect are not in question. It is this extra unnecessary piece called choice that remainbs unproven. Can you demonstrate a choice that is not observably the product of cause and effect? To be clear i do not mean asserting that some choice is not the product of cause and effect but to demonstrate it.
I thinky you'dfind it very hard to demonstrate that a choice is the effect of physical causes only - we don't understand brains well enough to do prove physicalism directly - it must remain a very plausible hypothesis for awhile yet.
Let's be clear - free will is a 'cause' with an 'effect', the effect being the making of a choice. The issue is that free will is supposed to be an 'immaterial cause'; ie it hs no physical manifestation; it is purely 'mind stuff' of the order as consciousness.
Or something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If free will existed people would occasionally resist the temptation to discuss free will.
So I am resisting it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Well, to be frank, it doesn't really matter how you interpret scripture. You are not in the church. You do not have the holy spirit guiding you.
There wouldn't be any point me posting the orthodox view - that's your job! I post what I think and leave it up to folk to make as much or as little of it as they like. My only promise to readers is that I don't post what I know to be false.
It is accepted by many scholars that the story of yhwh's creation of man is based on the making of holy statues and idols, which is a neat mirror image and remarkably common. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_of_man_from_clay .
It would be natural for the writers of genesis to imagine yhwh would use his own form as the template for his greatest creation ie he would 'make man in his own iimage'.
The anthroporphic version of yhwh was replaced by a more abstract conception over time, but Gen 1 has a faint echo of yhwh's past an clay idol as were all the gods of that time. IMO, the abstraction of yhwh probably had a lot to do with the rise of montheism but that's ongoing research!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I have no desire to know how - or if - Christian Presuppositionists deal with that.
Arguing with them is hard work, isn't it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
If you view presupposition as a tool used by Christians to understand their faith more deeply and not as a tool for converting atheists then it is less problematic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
I was just playing with the ⋄ notation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Ah, but how can you tell the religion of a baby? To me they all look like a bit like Buddha.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I think the scribes who wrote genesis were not over-intellectualised scholastic theologians and meant what they wrote - ie the gods created man to outwardly resemble themselves.
I am aware the church reserves to itself the right to interpret scripture - but I'm not a member!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
(¬⋄)P → ¬∃P
"If P is not possible then no P exists".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
It's all good. I'm not always on myself. And to think, a one sentence question could have so much answer. It is a deep question though. I don't choose to believe what i do off faith, so i try to reason as logically as i can... i am holding back too. Lol. I'll try to be more concise in the future.
I'd sum it up as believing that being dead is like having a lucid dream.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
You never think if you'd been born in a different place or time, to a different family, you may well have turned out Christian, Muslim, Jewish, what have you? I do.
I thought about that a bit once, but I concluded that if I had a different birth 'I' would not be 'me'. There are umpteen points in my life where a different choice would - presumably - have had a big effect on my life. But apart from being 'different' I don't know if those 'roads not traveled' would have been better or worse than my actual life. I don't think about it much any more; there are too many unknowns - and it is rather pointless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I surmise that the phrase 'in god's image' tells us that the Hebrew's image of their god was a very anthropomorphic one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
#26 The point is that the two scenarios A and B are identical but are worded differently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
it's not about ethics this time!
The point is that the two scenarios A and B are identical but are worded differently.
It was found that if you ask a group of people question A then most choose 1 and if you ask a different group question B most choose 4.
It shows that the way options are presented affects what people are likely to choose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I am. No way is it a cleverly programmed bot.I am also not 100% convinced that he isn't a cleverly programmed spam bot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Oh I agree the past is not infinite. It was the entropy argument against it I was having a go at, just to wind you up really. I wondered what other argumnts there were!
Apparently Hoyle and Gold dealt with the entropy issue in their original paper on the steady state theory, but the maths in the paper is beyond me. so i'm relying on 3rd parties.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
There are multiple problems with the idea of an infinite past. Entropy is not the only such problem, It is simply one of the strongest and most well known.
The idea that a universe with an infinite past would be at thermal equlibrium (ie maximum entropy) by now only applies if the universe is a closed system. but in the steady state theory the universe is not closed - new, low entropy material is constantly appearing counteracting the thermodynamic increase in entropy with time. So a steady state universe could have an infinite past.
Created:
Posted in:
1 How are you certain that no gods exist?2 Do you believe this is the only reality? Basically, that this is the only universe and there are no other universes? Again, how are you certain?3 Do you believe aliens exist?4 Do you believe human intelligence is the only type of intelligence that has ever existed? Basically, that humans are the first entities that exhibit this type of intelligence, consciousness, sentience?
i think they are good questions.
1 - very certain. As a sciencey type I should really say "No, because we can't be certain of anything". But on that basis the answer to every question 'are you certain X?' is no, so there's no point asking. So i'm as certain no gods exists as i am certain of anything. About as certain as the sun will rise tomorrow, a lot more certain than I am brexit is a good idea.
2 I read pop-sci. I tend to go with whatever seems most mainstream amongst proper scientists, which (at 7/3/19) is that there are multiple universes. I don't have strong views about it.
3 Lots of uncertainty here. my gut tells it's 50:50 for bacterial life in the solar system. Intelligent aliens exist somwhere, but probably itoo far away to matter. I'm not expecting the light-speed barrier to be broken and space is very, very big.
4 i think we humans over-estimate our uniqueness. I think the differences between human brains and animal brains is mostly in degree, not kind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
i'm not demonizing immigrants. I'm demonizing ILLEGAL immigrants.
Then why not simply legalise all immigrants? No more illegals!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Socialism is fundamentally an exploitation of people's envy and greed to destroy their own societies and consolidate 99% of the wealth, power and resources of a country into the hands of the 1%. Yes, the very thing socialists think they are fighting for is what it is they are going to bring about!
Well according to wikipedia,
"U.S. income inequality has grown significantly since the early 1970s,[15][16][17][18][19][20] after several decades of stability,[21][22][23] and has been the subject of study of many scholars and institutions. The U.S. consistently exhibits higher rates of income inequality than most developed nations due to the nation's enhanced support of free market capitalism and less progressive spending on social services.[24][25][26][27][28]"
Inequality of wealth is precisely what socialism was intended to counter. A properly functioning socialist state would take steps to actively redistribute any gross inequalities that arose. As you indirectly imply, the problem for socialist states is how to avoid turning into plutocratic dictatorships - the very opposite of the socialist ideal. One school of thought is that while the revolutionary route to socialism fails, an evolutionary route can succeed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I recommend the book that it is an excerpt from, I read it last week. Very good read.
I think i'll pass. Is it not written:
"Let me give you some further advice: Be careful, for writing books is endless, and much study wears you out."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
if an atheistic socialist government came into power they would persecute the church
I am a commited atheist and a commited socialist. I would like to see a world that was run on rational, scientific principles, (ie not superstitious ones) and where a system resembing "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" applied.
But I do not want such a world at any price, nor do I believe that 'ends justify means'. I wouldn't support a party that sought to bring about atheism or socialism 'by any means neccessary', History shows that people who do believe in 'by any means neccessary' are really only seeking power, not the implementation of rationalism or a utopian classless state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I wonder if Mopac has PM'ed you the same literature that he has PM'ed me
I don't recall getting any pm's from him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
it centers on the destruction of their worship system that happened in AD 70. This is a very reasonably proven fact.
So is the idea is that God tired of the Jews' continual disobedience and broke with them, creating a new covenant with gentiles instead?
Certainly the Romans dealt harshly with the Jewish rebellion, but empires have put down countless rebellions and routinely destroy institutions that opposed them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Prophecy makes it very clear that what I am getting here is to be expected.
You will see from Mopac's response that he is here because some Christians seek to be mocked and ridiculed for their faith. It is a way to demonstrate their faith that they don't waver.
Jesus suffered, and there is a tradition that being a Christian involves suffering and being persecuted. It is very biblical, supported by many verses, such as Rom 5:3-4 "We also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope." and 1 Pet 3:14 "But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.”"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Nonsense. No more than any Muslim American should "have to say" that they don't support the activities of ISIS. To assume that someone must by default be in support of any extremism which they have not specifically denounced is laughably absurd and allows the perfect breeding ground for the type of propaganda that feeds into the notions of people like Mopac, P-Witch, and others that entire groups of people ought to be demonized and treated as outcasts.
'Have to say that' was meant in the 'mandy rice davies' sense..,
Of course in general atheists do not have to apolgise for Stalin. But I think Mopac's views are coloured by the communist's assault on religion and shouldn't be shrugged off with mocking irony - Mopac is not PW.
You and I aren't Stalin or Mao... I wish I could be so sure about, say, WoA for instance.
.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
If the Bible is what it claims to be 1) there is no greater authority of appeal, 2) what exists will reasonably reflect what this God says.
I wonder if you find it as bizarre and inexplicable that I don't accept the authority of the bible as I find it bizarre and inexplicable that you do!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Considering atheistic governments have martyred over 20 million Orthodox Christians in the lasy [sic] century, I don't think that is weird.You're right Mopac, the fact that I don't believe your God exists means I want you to be genocided and would totally never devote four years of my life to an organization sworn to defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic peoples right to worship however they please.Flawless logic Mopac, truly nothing gets past you. Completely accurate and not offensive to me at all. *rolls eyes*
I take it you were being ironic.
I wouldn't dismiss Mopac's distrust of atheism as baseless or irrational given the track record of regimes that have embraced atheism. Genocide-scale killings of believers did follow in the wake of take-overs by regimes advocating 'scientific atheism' as matters of deliberate and calculated policy. We happily castigate Christians for the mythical genocides in the OT - we can't deny that very real genocides were carried out explicitly and openly in the name of atheism within living memory.
Of course you and I don't support killing theists - but then we have to say that, don't we?
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Have you stopped reading the bible? You've not got to the good bits.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Any ideology either is or can become dangerous!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Some people want to top the leaderboard and some people just want to thrash out a specific issue with bit more structure than the forums allow occasionaly.
I think the two may not mix too well.
Created:
-->
@Type1
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
John 18:38
"“What is truth?” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again."
I know how he felt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Debating seems very complicated. How many debaters are there on DA?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@The-Voice-of-Truth
if one is to assert that some property P(x) is possibly exemplified, then is it rational to say that P could or could not obtain?
Obviously it is rational - it follows from the natural meaning of the words.
i suppose i'd characterise this as ⋄P(x) → (∃xP(x) ∨ ¬∃xP(x))
You appear to have invented a symbol ⋄ for 'possibility'. You may not have noticed (∃xP(x) ∨ ¬∃xP(x)) is (A ∨ ¬A) and so reduces to simply 'true',
so ⋄Q = true, whatever Q is!
The ⋄ operator has the effect of making anything true, which is ok, but not very useful!
It's like putting 'possibly' in a sentence; it becomes true. 'It is possible i will win the lottery', 'it is possible the moon is made of cheese'.
As ⋄Q is always true, ⋄Q=⋄R(=true) for any Q and R, so you are right that ⋄P(x) and ⋄¬P(x) are equivalent (both are true). That makes sense as 'it is possible the moon is made of cheese' is equivalent to 'it is possible the moon is not made of cheese'.
Created:
Posted in:
It's hardly an innocent question! It was designed to show up the weakness of the theistic poisition. Therefore, it was aggressive. Overly agressive? - Par for the course I'd say.So do you believe it's overtly 'aggressive' to ask a theist then to demonstrate how they go from 'some being created the universe' to "MY being created the universe, yours didn't"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I appreciate your response - i just wish I hadn't asked the question!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Debates and threads about defining 'atheist', 'theist' and 'agnostic' are sure-fire to get a good level of response if things get quiet on a forum! I think I'll pass on this one. :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Where does agnosticism fit in?Theism and Atheism are mutually exclusive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I believe any sport other than cricket is uncivilised.
I think atheism can come across as purely negative - Mopac would say it's 'nihilistic'. We sometimes appear to be pure iconclasts who attack religion without offering anything positive; we only ever 'tear down', we never 'build up'.
For instance, I like to write about the bible as literature that refects its social and historical context. I try not simply mock it (except when I'm feeling peevish!) for instance by pointing out that bats aren't birds. I think its more interesting to work out why the Hebrews divided animals into clean and unclean. I like to tell theists why the bible is as it is in cooly objective terms - I'm sure they find that far more annoying!
If we are agressive, theists will focus on the agression rather than the argument. Atheism is correct and it is positive - it isn't just about laying waste to 2000 years of civilisation! I know that, you know that; but you can forgive theists for not knowing it, given the tone of WoA's posts!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
It's a fine distinction I admit! Is atheism about discrediting theism or establishing its own validity?It seems a distinction without a difference.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
i'd have more sympathy with WoA if I thought getting rid of religion would make much difference. Blacks and whites in the US are all basically the same religion but that doesn't seem to help much! Somalia is 100% muslim yet has been in civil war for decades. The deadliest war in human history wasn't about religion. In fact, very few (if any) wars i history were really about religion - they were about nationhood and power; the two sides just happened to have different religions so religion served to demarcate the sides.
I suppose getting rid of religion would help a bit - but it wouldn't be a cure-all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I don't have a permanent IPA - I get a new one each time I connect to my ISP.
In the last 5 minutes I disconnected/reconnected and got assigned
188.31.197.78
188.31.187.250
94.196.164.206
Jus' sayin.
Created: