Total posts: 2,082
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Option 3 leads to infinite regress.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
theists say God could have caused the universe. atheists say the universe could have caused itself. but the problem is we have reasons to think otherwise.
More accurately, I think, atheists say "the universe appears by all evidence available to have 'begun' at the big bang." THeists say "God created the universe." This leads to questions:
- What created god? Answer is usually "nothing, God's eternal." Next question:
- Why can't the universe then also be eternal? Answer "because it's not god" / "it's made of matter." Next question:
- Then what's god made of? I've not hear a coherent answer on this one, feel free.
The issue you might be having is that no one knows or can know what was 'before' the big bang if that even makes sense. THe question of why is there something rather than nothing has fascinated humanity forever, and still no good answer to it. Me, I just accept that there's no good answer and it really has no impact on my life or anyone else's, ever. THeists assign a cause without justification. Some people think the universe is a cycle of big crunch to big bang, on and on.
Created:
Posted in:
Which branch of "the government" was responsible for taking up the cases? And if "the government" lost both cases, I guess I don't see how they were harmed by "the government" since by definition, the baker and the photographer prevailed in court. Which again, I support, they have their right to refuse service, which is what the courts upheld.
Both men lost money and suffered social ostricism
Social ostricism is not a penalty applied by either the law or the government. It's applied by society.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
No, it isn't, I'm afraid. Suing someone is the right of private citizens in cases like that. And it's not THE GOVERNMENT doing it, it's very, very, very loosely people using the tools that government has put into place to resolve matters. If you're not advocating using the legal system when you feel you've been wronged, what SHOULD the aggrieved do? And again, you're misrepresenting what your original statement was: you said the government persecutes these people and destroys their lives, I quoted it twice. It's okay to be wrong. THe government doesn't do anything to these people, their fellow citizens are vocal about their opinions.
Do you support professional athletes right to kneel during the national anthem at sporting events?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I don't think you're making it up, I just don't remember a government action against those businesses, certainly not one aimed at destroying their lives specifically. It might surprise you but I actually supported those businesses and their right to serve whoever they want, or refuse that service...just as much as I support their community members who then loudly tell whoever is within earshot that the people running those businesses are bigots, and if you don't want to support bigotry, there are plenty of bakery and photographer options. That's not the government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Right, I remember these stories...but I don't remember the part where the government persecuted them over it and destroyed their lives. Did that not happen to them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
THe photographer and the baker that were shut down by the government for not catering to gays? You post again:
You will be persecuted and your life destroyed by govt if you try to oppose it. Just ask anybody who owns a business who refused to cow tow.
So, no, I don't know about the government destroying the lives of small business owners over their refusal to serve gays. Can you link me to the story where again, THE GOVERNMENT, not their community, "persecuted" these businesses?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
You will be persecuted and your life destroyed by govt if you try to oppose it. Just ask anybody who owns a business who refused to cow tow.
Can you give me an article that shows a business that was ordered to be closed by the government for opposing gay marriage? Honest question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I'm just pointing out you can't really cite Occam's Razor and invoke an undemonstrated all powerful being, as you're adding an undemonstrated cause without justifying. Not to mention you seem to know the mind of god, which I thought christians took as a big no no. And the Abraham / Isaac thing wasn't in times of war.
Created:
-->
@rosends
The underlying problem is in the definition of a miracle. What counts?
+1. For me it'd be something that requires natural laws to be suspended in single instances, but whatever the definition, it's required for fruitful discussion.
Created:
I think the point is why don't miracles that would convince wide swaths of people occur today as they seem to have done in the bible. I think if 600,000 people or something like whatever the population of the hebrew host wandering around in the desert was in the story today saw something like what was in the 10 Commandments movie, that would be pretty compelling for those people, as it was in the movie. Healing someone's condition is not only difficult to truly assign as a miracle, it only affects a super small population: that person, their family maybe, someone working on them. Alternately, one might ask why does the occurrence of miracles appear inversely proportional to the amount of scientific knowledge we've gained in the last 500 years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I'm not being clear, sorry. Using Occum's razor, how did you decide this was the result of someone being mentally ill (when the bible's version of god routinely has humans do his killing for him, so there is precedent) and not divine command?
Applying Occum's razor to this case for me would look something like:
"The perpetrator claims to have received a command from god, much like the one the bible says he issued to Abraham about Isaac, or any of the other killings god commanded humans to perform).
THeory #1: creator of the unvierse commanded this guy to murder people. Okay, so first thing is can I show that there is a creator of the universe? Well, not really, so I would have to assume there was this entitity, and THEN would have to demonstrate that said entity, again undemonstrated, is actually this specific book character. And THEN I'd have to find a way to confirm (a) this universe creating entity requires humans to do its dirty work like murders even though it'd be powerful enough to create a universe and (b) confirm its communication of these requests. Because the believers in this particular entity seem, in spite of the character's behavior in the book, completely convinced that this god would never ever command someone to go murder a baby, then, we'd have to figure out why he got it wrong, or if he was mistaken. If he's MISTAKEN about the voice, what's that tell us?
THeory #2: he has a mental imbalance. We know there are people with chemical imbalances in their brains or traumatic brain injuries, because we see them every day, they're studied and documented and often treated. We know some of those imbalances, left untreated, can lead to delusions like hearing voices that aren't there or seeing images that aren't there, and we can tell that because only the afflicted report these beliefs. Oftentimes these imbalances lead to violent behavior.
Does theory number 2 seem applicable even if theory #1 is completely deleted from this post? That's Occum's razor: the theory that adds the least complexity is often the correct answer. But for a person who believes in god as you do, you cannot delete theory #1, so you're kind of stuck working with that theory until it's proven false, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
However I think an application of ocean's razor would suggest, God was not talking to this guy
Why would occam's razor suggest that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The idea all theists are murders gets old.
Who has this idea?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I think the guy you mentioned, probably has some serious psychological conditions.
How did you reach this conclusion? I'm not saying I disagree, I'm just curious how you know it WASN'T what he said it was.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If something is justifiable by circumstance, as in the example I gave, then you are applying the moral prohibition against killing another person SUBJECTIVELY. Objectively, killing is either moral or immoral and no justification is possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Talk about wishy washy. You just don't like that you now demonstrate subjective morality is the only actual version of morality that makes any sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Well that's your conjecture
No, it's my conclusion based on the available evidence. Present more evidence and I'll gladly change my position.
You don't know what's realistic or true, that's obvious.
Which is why I've asked you to demonstrate what you say to be true. You cannot.
I don't know what's been said that's bizarre, but you are always entitled to your own bizarre opinions. I've been discussing basic spiritual concepts. Much of what I say has already been presented for a long time.
"Spiritual concepts" do not as presented constitute a representation of reality. They are just concepts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
@Polytheist-Witch
Ok, so I don't know why meditation is considered any of that. When I meditate it's not to get beyond physical pboundaries, whatever that means in real life, and I don't know what "spiritual level" means vis a vis meditation, sorry. I do it because it's a way to enjoy the quiet, focus my thoughts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
You @'d her, not me. And you're awful sensitive, man, I'm not trying to make you feel stupid, just pointing out that there's nothing in your arguments other than your imagination. You say you're trying to add detail to these concepts, that doesn't make them any more realistic or true, it's bizarre. I'm not trying to mock you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
they do not believe in spiritual practices like meditation
I believe in meditation, I just don't understand what you mean by 'spiritual practice.'
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
How am I mocking you by asking how can I tell if you're telling the truth? And why are you yelling at PW?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I don't really enjoy conversing with you anyways, you're kind of a prick
Haha, okay, fair enough. I am kind of a prick.
I don't know what you mean by "demonstrate", all I can offer you is the truth
Well, the concept of demonstration is fairly simple: if it's true, you should be able to say "see, this is how you can tell it's true." You never have. You just say "this is usful information" when as far as I can tell, it's just your singular fantasy imagined version. If it's true, then why can't you demonstrate it? I'm struggling to think of anything that I know to be true, that CANNOT be demonstrated.
Just so you know I've put in the time, application and observations to present what I know to be the most accurate path to knowledge I can offer you.
Great! Let's see the application and your documented observations. I'm sorry, anecdotal evidence from a TV show does not make for compelling evidence. You said NDE's only happen after the brain shuts down, and you haven't said how you know that. Empirically, there can't be brain activity to detect if the brain shuts off, so are you saying this happens outside the brain? How do you know that, then? I'm glad to change my mind, if presented with evidence that's compelling. You're making extraordinary claims and providing SUPER soft evidence (one guy's oxygen-deprived recollection).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Number one, when you leave the physical body you will be present within an energetic subtle body where there is still a high form of sensation, perhaps different from the physical body but still present within your experience. The vibrational quality of the subtle body exists at a much finer and higher frequency than that of the material earthly body which is far more dense and limited. The exact anatomy of this energetic body is probably somewhat of a mystery at least in this world, however I believe there is still a tangible energetic frequency that we experience. Because of the lightness of the spirit, the physics change drastically as your spiritual body can travel and move multidimensional.
Demonstrate the truth in any one of these sentences, and I'll read the rest of that post. This is purely your conjecture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What's the difference between justified (right thing to do under the circumstances) and moral?
A man mercilessly beats his wife until she's finally had enough and defends herself by killing him. Is her action immoral?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Just say "I don't know what I'm arguing at all, I've heard this from others and never bothered to put any thought into it on my own" then. How lazy can you be?
Is subjective morality inconsistent with SOCIETY, according to SOCIETY?
What problem does objective morality SOLVE in practical terms? What moral questions does it answer?
Here's another way to try it. Is it ever moral to kill someone? Christians refer to the Ten COmmandments often, and the commandment says plainly thou shalt not kill. This commandment was given, according to the legend, directly by what many Christians point to as the font of morality, god himself. There's no interpretation to it. So is it ever moral to kill another person?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Lol, you can only experience pain through the nervous system of the physical body, and that only occurs while you are consciously awake within the body.
So souls can't be tortured, then? How do they experience pleasure?
That's not proof that NDE's aren't actual or that conscious experience doesn't extend beyond the life of the brain,
That's not my point in bringing it up: my point was these stories ONLY come up when people die in some less-than-instant way, when blood flow and thereby oxygen flow to the brain is gradually reduced to critical levels. This allows for the idea that the brain, given the option, resorts to survival instinct and combs through the most important memories and ideas a person has had stored in their brains to find a reason to keep fighting. Do people who get shot in the back of the head experience the same? People who die instantly, in other words, that don't have the prolonged lack of oxygen. It'd be really helpful if one of those people could report what happened right before they died, then you'd have something to compare your NDE experiences to. Instead all you have is exactly what I laid out: people whose brains experienced critical blood and oxygen deficiency for enough time to have been declared dead, or nearly dead, and who fortunately came back.
Now, this is in spite of the fact that NDE's take place after no signs of brain activity, as that is what defines an NDE
So you're 100% certain that the brain shuts off THEN an NDE occurs? Not that what's being called an "NDE" here happens inside the brain as it's still functioning in its death throes, THEN it shuts off, and that memory is accessed right after resuscitation? It seems a pretty critical piece of your theory, how are you certain?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
What's the "ND" in NDE stand for?
NDErs are not irreversibly dead. but they are still dead, and you can't deny that's significant
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Inconsistent WITH WHAT, according to whom? And how does objective morality solve the problem? How is it applied?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Can you explain why it doesn't make sense, and how an 'objective' and single definition of 'good' solves this problem?
Created:
The answer to the OP question is easy: you shouldn't assume supernatural things happen to anyone, and instead you should ask for substantiation of supernatural claims. How'd I do?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Sure. My view is that morality is indeed subjective, and what's moral and immoral is actually determined by the society in which you live, and the time in which you're living. For example, it was one time considered moral to own slaves. It was at one time considered moral to raze your enemy's villages or cities to the ground. It's sometimes considered moral to kill an unarmed person, sometimes it isn't. It's subjective. Who determines it? Society. When you run afoul of it, you're cast out or punished either socially or legally or both. In almost all cases, people disagree on what's moral, and you're free to make your case to change minds in most civilized nations (MLK, for example) and majority rules. Why is an "objective" morality, i.e. one that is not subject to interpretation, required?
It's a straw man because normally this is the argument, "you don't know what moral is for certain therefore you cannot say it was immoral for Hitler to kill so many jews, and if you do, you admit my god's real be default." No one on my side (subjective morality) makes the argument you guys knock down.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
How so? Is this the "because your good and my good will never match, therefore what HItler did was fine because he thought it was" straw man?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
actually youre the one doing the claim is evidence conflating. you think simply asserting a theory is a good explanation. i see no reason to assume it's true, even if i agree it's plausible. i'm the one that has evidence here... people are clinically dead, and they tell us of the afterlife when they when they come back. that's plain evidence. so yes, i have evidence, all you have is a claim that you are conflating as evidence.
I'm not asserting a theory about there being a survival gene. that's part and parcel of being a member of a species. If you don't inherently want to survive, you don't have a fight or flight response, and you're eaten, quickly. The reason my 'theory' is more plausible than yours is because everything I said is demonstrated: people nearing death, particularly prolonged struggles, report 'life flashing before their eyes.' Your evidence for these people being transported to another dimension and returning is what, their reports? If so, why aren't they all exactly the same? Why do Christinas see CHristian iconography, why do Hindus see Hindu iconography, why do some people see none, why do parents see their children when they're young, even if they're old? Again, my idea requires no inference of another dimension or supernatural plane. Yours does. All I'm saying is demonstrate that's real, not someone's anecdote reported from a time where their brain was going through end of life functionality. If someone testifies about something, do you just take that testimony alone at its word? Do you require corroboration from another witness? See if their stories match? Or better, can you independently confirm what the testimony was, through like video or forensics?
eople are clinically dead, and they tell us of the afterlife when they when they come back. that's plain evidence.
They're clinically dead, they're not ACTUALLY dead to report what's happening when they're really dead. I repeat: what do people who've been shot in the back of the head report vis a vis the afterlife?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
What is the expected standard of proof to prove a miracle? Is it beyond lingering doubt? Beyond Reasonable Doubt? Is it on the balance of probabilities? Is it the pub test? And why is it that particular standard
FOr me, the definition of a miracle is some act that CLEARLY defies the laws of nature, and is documented, and investigated by neutral parties. If it's not outside the laws of nature, like, I don't know, a guy being bodily risen from the dead after three days then shooting off into the sky after 40 days, then in my book it's improbable, but not a miracle.
If God does not exist, then supernatural miracles cannot happen.
This is not at all true: if no god exists, then by definition a god cannot author miracles, that's more accurate. If a documented miracle were to occur, all you'd have presumably is a documented miracle, and seeing how much the Christian god loves to hide and confound people, it's not likely that it would reveal itself this way. Miracles are not contingent on god, they're contingent on the supernatural.
Although I certainly know people - reliable people - trustworthy people - who would swear it and even have medical records. But the records - show what? A miracle or something unexplained? If it is unexplained, then an atheist could never say it was a miracle - just that one day we might know. There are plenty of examples of medical records that one day show a significant medical issue and then next day it has gone. GPs would not ordinarily call it a miracle. Is it though? I don't know. But they do call it unexplained - and it gets filed as such.
For someone who is taking the piss out of the atheists in the OP for arbitrarily saying miracles don't exist, suddenly you're taking a very wishy washy stance. Unexplained is all anyone can call these occurrences.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Give you another one, a real life one: the odds of making a hole in 1 on a par three in golf are about 1 in 12500. I play with a guy who I witnessed make two in a two month period, and he didn't have 12500 swings in between, that's 140 rounds of golf at his level. Did he perform a miracle, was he subjected to a miracle, or was something else afoot, do you think? Because I think it's just what's called a statistical anomaly: something that seems improbable but is not impossible.
Oakland A's slugger Khris Davis from 2015 to 2019 hit .247. Not AVERAGE across those four years: EXACTLY .247, each year, in succession. Is this miraculous?
Is that then how you're defining 'miracle,' as something that has no religious connotation, seems statistically HIGHLY improbable, and happens anyway? Sounds like the definition of a coincidence.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I'm not sure you understand how probability works, but okay, and also "so many coincidences" according to that post means that so long the next 1 billion times a church with fifteen choir members blows up and no choir members were on time to practice and therefore were not blown up, this is exactly the right level of coincidences. In other words, every occurence is independent of all others. My advice is (a) don't get into roulette, you're ripe for the "well 32 has not come out in the last 100 rolls, it's 'overdue' to come out" sucker play, and (b) don't learn what a 6 way parlay is.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
We should be getting the right amount of coincidences, not too many .
WHat's the right amount and how is it determined?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
we see people die, and then they come and tell us of the afterlife.
Well, no...you see people NEARLY die, strictly speaking. I mean you only hear these stories from people who were in the hospital, or choking, had time to consider it, right? Have you ever heard the near death experiences described by someone who has been hanged, or shot in the back of the head?
arguing that people hallucinate eleboarate afterlife stories when they die, and then give no good reason for why they do so, is as stupid as it comes.
Do you believe all living creatures have the self-preservation instinct at the most basic level? If so, then a version of this may explain the 'hallucinations.' Near death, particularly a prolonged death, the brain experiences a severe lack of oxygen. As it tries to trigger the survival mechanism, it accesses things that the brain in question considers important above all: things that inspire the dying to fight on. Like images of your children, even if they're grown. Or images of religious iconography (Hindus never hallucinate Jesus, right?). Or anything that might make the brain draw one last breath, because maybe that one will be the one that moves the needle from "dead" to "alive." This makes more sense than 'it's an afterlife, has to be!' for a number of demonstrable reasons. One, we know that living organisms, particularly sentient ones, want above all to survive, we see this behavior in the animal kingdom all over the place. Two, the lack of a single version of this experience (unless there are multiple afterlives) would lead us to think it's at least in part informed by an individual's life and what's in it. In other words, if someone has no pets, stands to reason that no pet would show up in their death throe struggles. If someone's never heard fof Jesus, we don't expect Jesus to show up in their NDE reports.
You're doing the popular "claim IS evidence" conflation. You need to claim there's an afterlife, then demonstrate there is. I get that you think an accusation is a form of evidence, but it's an exceptionally soft form.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
please show us there is a murder, but please do it without producing the dead body, the weapon or the witness who said he did it.
What you're asking is more like "You've been accused of murder, and the accusation is enough to unequivocally find you guilty." You're using the claim as evidence of the claim, in other words, but I think you know that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I also demonstrated that when Ludo says he would do good because it was the right thing to do - was nonsense. It is as arbitrary a thought process as many others. To do good - is subjective. And "because it is the right thing" is subjective. Who determines what is the right thing? Who determines what good is? Unless there are absolutes, then these things ARE arbitrary by definition. That is the meaning of subjective.
Uh, I never disagreed that these things are subjective. I determine it, for me, in the moment. I determine what I think good is, then I act accordingly. Sometimes I'm wrong, most times I'm right. It's arbitrary but many, many, many people agree that it's 'good' to hold a door for an old woman. I don't need to check with Jesus.
When our world becomes totally subjective. And that is logical conclusion and the inescapable position of there being no god. I am still waiting for someone - anyone to refute this. Saying there are humanist worldviews - does not produce a standard and agreed definition of good. Saying it changes over time does not assist either. Arbitrary understandings of good or "the right thing" simply don't cut it.
What exactly is your objection to an entirely subjective view of morality or good? Saying "doesn't cut it" doesn't explain why. On the other hand, if 'objective good' is just code for god, then something is either ALWAYS good or NEVER good. Of course you're going to say it's never good to have sex with a one month old baby (about the straw-iest straw man there ever was), but was it ever "good" to have sex with your dad? Is it ever good to stone a woman in the streets?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Ok, so clearly you don't get that you cannot use a bible to prove the bible is true. By that logic I can prove that the novel IT by Stephen King is a documentary.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Who said anything about the supernatural?
This is why I asked for the definition of miracle in this case. I don't deny that incredibly unlikely things happen all the time (Leicester winning the PL in 2015 or 16 whenever it was was a 5000-1 gamble), I just don't assign supernatural cause. In a religion forum it seems reasonable to have assumed the cause of the mentioned miracles was Jesus or god or whatever. If you don't think miracles have a supernatural component, and are not guided or caused by anything divine, and are instead just crazy coincidences, then I don't deny crazy coincidences occur, and sometimes are colloquially called miracles (as in the Miracle on Ice, or the Music City Miracle). I don't deny breaking the laws of probability occurs. Breaking the laws of nature, though, doesn't.
Does that clear it up?
Created:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Because as yet no one has demonstrated that anything supernatural exists or has occurred at all. Everything we know occurs within nature, not "super"nature.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Can you point out the supernatural element that can't be denied in that story? Otherwise it does look like a coincidence. Spectacularly unlikely, but not supernatural. You say "I know you'll chalk this up to coincidence," then link to a story that is literally a coincidence, unless there's something more to it that you can show that would rule out the coincidental in favor of the supernatural. I also don't get why God would spare the choir but wants to blow up his own house to do so, seems a strange way to demonstrate its existence.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Can you give us an example of a documented miracle outside the bible? I mean besides the Miracle On Ice in 1981. I don't think we can have a fruitful discussion if we aren't understanding what you think a miracle is first.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
f I woke up tomorrow and discovered by some amazing epiphany that there was no god, what would I do? I would no longer worry about anything but my life. I would do my own thing. I would be selfish. I would be looking after no. 1. Yes, I would good at times, but only if it served my purposes. I would not go around killing people in case I got killed back, or went to prison. I would not respect other human life. Why should I? If I am going to be a life that is just a dot in the history of everything - then I will try and get as much zest out of it as possible. That would be the only meaning for me. The pursuit of my happiness. Now of course that does not mean I suddenly become as evil as possible - but it does mean that I will do whatever I can do - without getting caught. And that would be perfectly ok - because good is subjective isn't? That is why the second part of your paragraph is INCONSISTENT.
Yeah, this kinda means you're not a good person: you're only doing what you think god wants you to do because you think he or she is there, watching, and waiting with a reward or a punishment. By all means, then, please keep believing this way. Me, I don't do good only when it serves my own purposes. I do it because it makes the world a better place, in ways large or small. Like when I hold the door open for someone...that makes the world a little bit better and serves no purpose for me. You're saying fxck that person, unless, of course, Jesus is watching. You wouldn't respect human life without Jesus? What's the matter with you, seriously? You think people who don't believe as you do (because there are far more non Christians than Christians) are only pursuing their own happiness all the time? Your entire personal integrity ("doing whatever I can do without getting caught") is based ENTIRELY on the reality of Jesus? Are you serious? I always find it strange how unChrsitian Christians turn out to be, not surprising, but strange. But here it's laid fairly bare, no?
God loves people. God created a pretty good world. Humanity stuffed it up. God wants to see the world improved again. But humanity stuffed it up - and so - humanity should try and fix it up. Humanity does a pretty bad job and continues to do a pretty bad job. The world God made continued to have a God that warned people when they were sinning and God continued to put humanity on notice when they sinned and stuffed things up. God continues to help humanity despite their ignoring him. Yet, he warns and then judges. He warns and then judges. I sometimes think that people like you would prefer that judges just stop judging and let people do what they want to do -without consequences. That is the effect of what you say about God. Stop judging us - let us do our own thing. Let us try and fix up the world - we have no idea how to do - but we are sure that we will figure it out - if we don't kill ourselves first.
Did god not know people would screw up his world when he made them? Is he surprised? Because if he is, then he's not all knowing. If he's not, then WHY is he judging? I want judges who are just with consequences that make sense. Damning all of mankind for the sins of one person, especially since an omniscient god would have known he'd sin and screw it up, is neither just nor sensible. Judges don't set up the circumstances, leaving only one path (a crime), then judge the person who they knew in advance would commit the crime. They also don't mete out consequences on that person's descendants. Your bleak view of the world as it is certainly is another reason you should keep believing in god, otherwise it seems like you think nothing at all would matter.
If good is subjective, then so is evil. How we improve the world is determined by our worldview and the standards we hold to. This is why I find atheists who think they are attacking god with the things he has done - but some sort of absolute morality when they don't hold to it themselves is irrational.
Yes, good and evil are subjective and change over time. Sorry, that's just the way life is. It was at one time viewed as moral to sell your duaghter into se slavery, in the Old TEstament. Now it isn't. If morality didn't change, then that would still be going on all over the world. Why exactly do I need an absolute morality, again? Is it impossible to understand morality through the lens of the society and time in which I live? Yes, I understand that it changes this way, but that's good. At one point, it was moral to shun gay people, for example. Are we not glad that changed?
What is humanism and why does it have nothing to do with atheism.
Humanism: noun
- an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.
Atheismnoun
- disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
THere is no connective tissue between the two. You can be a theist and a humanist, an atheist and not a humanist (sounds like what you'd be, if you quit believing, you'd just be an asshole). All that "why bother doing good, the world's going in the toilet, so fxck it, I'm gonna get mine" sort of stuff is just crazy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Why do you think you ought to do good? How do you determine if it improves it or not?
My answer is pretty clear: I try to do good because it improves the world around me. That's according to my perception of my actions vis a vis the world around me. It's not difficult.
Well obviously it is derived from atheism. But it doesn't just arrive from nowhere?
If it's obvious that my desire to do good derives from atheism, please provide your demonstratioin. I've never once done anything good or bad and thought "I'm doing this because atheism." It arrives through the social contract we all live by: if I do good, and you do good, then the world gets better. It's just humanism, it has nothing to do with atheism.
I do good because it pleases God. Not because he might punish me - but because I love God and like to please him. And also it makes sense rationally. For instance I don't kill people. I do this because I value life. I value life because God is the author of life. And I want to be like him.
Let's imagine that you woke up tomorrow and there was some rock solid confirmation that there is absolutely no god or gods. Would you immediately stop doing good? As to the bold, this is EXACTLY what I do, I just don't do it related to anything about any god. If you want to be like god, do you also think about punishing the sinful, taking your vengeance on your enemies, holding people accountable whose great grandparents committed some crime, and drowning humanity? I have a real hard time arriving at the conclusion that the god of the bible values life as much as I do. TUrned a woman into a pillar of salt, for pete's sake. Do you want to be like that one too?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
neurons firing create consciousness, can you give a reason to believe such trash? No, all you have is a stale azz statement, then you mock me even though I put all the thought into my premise.
As to the bold, we can see neurons firing in living brains through various means. Dead brains do not exhibit this behavior. I didn't say I think this is what CREATES consciousness. This would be why I think that's what INDICATES consciousness: it's what we can see. You're adding something to it, and all I'm asking you to do is demonstrate where I can see it, the same way I see electrochemical activity in every living brain, and none in any dead brain. It's measurable and demonstrable. What causes it has never been proven to be anything beyond matter arranged in a certain way, reacting to certain things. Your circuitboard analogy doesn't work, because to you the "power" on the circuitboard of human consciousness is the soul. Circuitboards have demonstrable external power sources. Living things don't, so the analogy needs a lot of work.
That stale azz statement is just science, bro. Don't get mad at it. I mock you because you THINK you're putting thought into your premise, when really what you're putting into it is imagination and a bunch of words. There's no argument there at all. I don't pretend to have superior knowledge, I'm just stating what science shows us. Which one of us is all upset because his "useful information" that he has access to (special knowledge) isn't compelling? I don't need mine to be compelling, it's available to anyone to look at for themselves. So much so that you don't even deny it (electrochemical reactions indicating consciousness), you just jam magic in as the reason for it. I'm not the one saying I know what does it. What do I have to prove? I'm saying I don't know, you're saying you do, I say then show me. You then get all upset. Maybe the internet isn't for you?
Created: