Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Soluminsanis
I'm sure it has already been pointed out to you but "if atheism is true" is a nonstarter since atheism is the rejection of a particular kind of claim rather than a claim in and of itself and any examination of whether or not "atheism is true" is generally also an attempt at a shifting of the burden of proof away fro the claim being made to the person or persons who reject the claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Excellent point humorously put.
Created:
Posted in:
In the interest of a fresh start let us begin at the beginning. I will state my most basic axiom (deeply held personal beliefs from which I build outwards) and I welcome critiques and also encourage others to share their own most basic axiom.
My most fundamental and basic axiom is as follows.
I am experiencing something.
That's it. That is all I can be 100% sure of. Even if the I in 'I am' turns put to be nothing more than the sum total of the experiential data.
Any attempt to address this experience or to communicate with any other apparent conciousnesses within it (other people for example) requires that I first accept the experience I am having more or less at face value and I cannot actually falsify this proposition. That being the case any proposition within that framework that cannot be falsified even if I do make the assumption that my personal perceived reality reflects some 'actual' reality must therefore be dismissed as doubly insupportable.
Thank you for reading and for any contribution you should make to the thread...if any of this is actually happening of course.
Yours skeptically secularmerlin.
Created:
-->
@Athias
So you don't want to have a discussion at all. You only desire to shut the conversation down. You would like to muddy the waters till conversation is pointless.
Created:
Posted in:
You made the statement it was a matter of interpretation of the bible.
I don't recall precisely which conversation you are referring to.
But even now is the historical narrative incompatible with evolution? Well I say - it depends upon how evolution is defined.
The process of evolution is the change in allele frequency from generation to generation.
The theory of evolution (as separate from the process of evolution) is the best explanation put forth by the scientific community to explain the diversity of species we observe in our world.
So I ask. Is this definition compatible with genesis as a historical narrative?
Although it is obvious they never use the kind. And kind to them is simply a word created by creationists to try and confuse the issue.
Ok so clear things up. Exactly what is a kind and why do you believe one species cannot evolve over time into another? We have observed that it is possible under laboratory conditions why not through a process of response to environmental pressures?
The one thing that all Christian theists have in common no matter whether they are sold on evolution or not is that God is the creator of life.
Yes that is the claim that they would need to demonstrate in order to be rationally justified in their beliefs.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Ok then what language would you like to use to make this distinction?
Created:
-->
@Athias
Well if one subscribes to history that the legend of Santa Klaus stemmed from "Saint" Nicholas, then Santa Klaus would have actual being even by your materialist standards. But as I've continued to argue, as far as existence is concerned, there's no significant distinction between material and immaterial.
I am distinguishing between any historical character and the imaginary figure of santa claus (here defined as a jolly magic fat man who delivers presents all over the world on Christmas eve) if you are not making this distinction then that is your choice but it makes the words real and exist more or less meaningless since their function is specifically make the distinction between reality and fiction.
That's fine so long as the distinction concerns the distinction itself. When applied to existence or ontological analysis, your reasoning will warrant the substantiation of logical consistency.
If belief = perception = reality or even if you replace = with informs then there is no distinction between a thing which actually exists and a thing which any given human believes exists. Without this distinction the words real and exist are largely meaningless as they pertain to the physical reality of as separate from any given incorrect perception.
If the words reality and exist can be applied to anything and every fanciful notion we come up with exists and is real then
A we do not mean the same thing when we use the words
and
B then any discussion of things which are provably part of physical reality in the way I mean it as opposed to fictional becomes completely impossible.
Created:
-->
@Athias
If you believe that santa claus is an actual being rather than an imaginary one or if you do not make a distinction between actual and imaginary then no I don't suppose I do.
I however make a distinction between actual and imagined.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Is it okay to kill innocent human beings?
Doesn't original sin (as per your argument) guarantee that there are no innocent human beings? Perhaps it would simplify things if we simply eliminate the word innocent. That would leave us with the revised question "is it ok to kill human beings?" Now this still doesn't get to the core of what is and is not a human being (or more to the point a person which is perhaps a more important distinction) but I am interested to know how you will answer this revised question. Is it ok to kill humans?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Once you start discriminating against one group or another of innocent human beings you are not being just and it leads to great inhumanity and dehumanization.
So if for example the rules governing the ownership of, protection under the law for and killing of hebrews verses non hebrews then they are an unjust foundation?
Created:
-->
@Athias
Oh I think the real problem is that we are defining reality and existence differently but it is impossible to know without some clarification on your part. If you really don't care to do that then it is true that this conversation is not going to be fruitful.
Also I do not understand the distinction you are making between believing in and believing to be real.
Created:
-->
@Athias
And a good day to you also. It was certainly interesting talking to an adult who still believes in santa claus.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Either santa claus exists or your argument is flawed. Please try to keep up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Gender and sex would appear to be more of a spectrum and less of a binary than many people (especially those who disapprove of the transgender community or "lifestyle") seem to think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Firstly one cannot "believe in atheism" since it is a lack of belief by definition.
That aside I only "know" one thing for certain. I am experiencing something even if that something turns out to be completely illusory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't think the answer is dependent upon biblical interpretation but rather upon how evolution is defined.
The process of evolution is the change in allele frequency from generation to generation.
The theory of evolution (as separate from the process of evolution) is the best explanation put forth by the scientific community to explain the diversity of species we observe in our world.
If either of these ideas invalidates your religion I may have some bad news for you.
Created:
-->
@Athias
No. I've put forth the argument that God exists.
Your argument is the belief = perception = existence. Some (small) humans believe in santa claus ergo your argument is that santa claus exists.
If you see a problem with my argument please point put the specific logical flaw or offer a (specific defined well defined or logically necessary) counterfactual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I think you are attempting to conflate two different ideas.
What a coincidence I think you are trying to conflate two different ideas.
Buddhists don't go around calling themselves atheist Buddhists. They affirm there is no god. But they don't call themselves atheists, not in the way secular atheists do. But the other thing you seem to miss about Buddhists is that they are not an exclusive religion. In other words, they don't have an issue with having two religions - they are what is called a polytheistic religion. I have met so called Christian Buddhists. And I have met so called Muslim Buddhists.
Atheism is just the lack of belief in god. I didn't coin the term it is just shorthand. Rather than an atheist you could just say I have no religion and no belief in any gods but that is a bit of a mouthful. I have met self identified Christian atheists. Is that just one religion or two? What would you make of a Christian Muslim Buddhist shintoist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
As far as your question how I determined that any god exists, I'm guessing you haven't seem my testimony (which is likely considering the numerous posts and threads). And the Bible actually informs us on how to make that determination.
The bible is the claim. Under no circumstances should a claim be considered proof of itself.
I think we're at least on the same page that love exists, right?
We are on the same page that social organisms appear to be capable of love and that humans can even communicate the concept to one another.
If you granted for the sake of argument that God exists, this would imply that the ability for us humans to love was given by God.
No that is a non sequitur. That some gid created something does not imply that said god also gave that something any particular capacity. In fact just granting some god(s) is different entirely from granting some creator god(s). If I were to grant your god you would still have some work to do to prove that your preferred god created anything.
This means that if you wanted to do someone you love good, big or small, then God would be the ultimate reason you're throwing a surprise birthday party for a loved one.
Incorrect especially if I don't even believe in that god. In fact the reason I throw people birthday parties is that their parents had sex on that date less nine months.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Well what is the purpose of his hypothesis being disavowed and other scientists dismissing it as racist drivel? Is the purpose only to hurt the man or is it an attempt to limit the damage his hypothesis could potentially do to minorities?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
How have you determined that any god(s) actually exist or what if anything any god(s) love or what loving someone(thing) should do to inform our actions and moral judgements?
You have a lot of ground to cover before we get from your claim about "god's love" and a working moral theory even if I were to grant your preferred god's existence for the sake of argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
The compromise is the conclusion that Watson's hypothesis is based on personal racism.How do you/they know he wasn't sincere, no matter how off he was, about his hypothesis?
Irrelevant to the situation if he is doing harm. The most basic goal of a punishment is to change behavior. If his behavior (or hypothesis) causes harm and being ostracized prevents or works against that harm then it is hard to argue against the punishment.
Created:
-->
@Athias
How you feel is irrelevant; as is anyone's feelings. I'm not trying to impress you. I'm submitting logically consistent arguments.
You have put forth the argument that santa claus exists. Logical consistency does not always lead to truth. It depends on how supportable the premises you are building on actually are.
Created:
-->
@Athias
You don't owe me any explanation for your time frame but I am still somewhat underwhelmed by your argument.
Created:
-->
@rosends
If I believe in a single, infinite monotheistic God then his name is (in a sense) unimportant. There can't be a "wrong" one if there is only room for one. If the entire underlying monotheism is inaccurate and the "right" God is one within a polytheistic system then I'm OK being wrong because the idea of a polytheistic system doesn't make much sense to me.
Of you believe in a being with particular attributes (say omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence and omnibenevolence) but the one true god lacks ine or more of these attributes then you are correct what we call this being is unimportant to whether or not you are correct. Also why is polytheism less sensible than any other flavor of theism? Some things require multiple causes. Fire requires heat, fuel and oxygen. If any of the three is insufficient then you get no fire. Perhaps it takes matter, anti matter and at least twelve gods to make a universe.
I respect you for rarely overstating your position by the way. You strike me as very sensible for the most part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
I don't know but if the fact that evolution does take place invalidates any given religion I may have some bad news for proponents of that religion.
Created:
-->
@rosends
If one believes that there is only one God, then how can the one we believe in be the wrong one?
Well if you believe in the Yahweh for example but the one true god were actually Vishnu or Nabozo or Voltron. It is easy to believe in the wrong thing. There is also the possibility (not mentioned by the op) that no god(s) whatever actually exist.
In the end the difference between no god and a god we cannot demonstrate adequately is indistinguishable.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Its pretty simple really. I don't need the permission of any god or human to find meaning in my life and my family connections. Maybe some god(s) exist and maybe they don't but if any does they don't seem overly concerned with my belief in them and my life is just as fulfilling now as it was when I was a theist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
By my own personal moral intuition (emotional response to what I subjectively believe to be right or wrong) which is the only one I have to rely on.
Created:
-->
@Athias
It took you 15 days to not explain your position any better?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I don't say that truth doesn't exist. I say that the truth has nothing to do with any god(s) including yours. There is a difference. That is your cue to retreat into tautologically defining your preferred God as truth until pressed on what that means at which point you will begin ascribing truth attributes I have no reason to accept and then back and forth and back and forth and you know what you don't need me for this. Just pretend I'm still paying attention. You seem good at pretending.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I might consider it an inadequate moral principle. I mean that can be used to determine other behaviors when used as a measuring stick.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
These are moral dictates not a basic moral standard. Nothing about the list you posted tells us why it is wrong to disobey your parents or desire the stuff if others (except for the stuff of foreigners. It just assumes a greater authority effectively abdicating personal moral intuition especially where the two are in conflict.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
you are an idiot.
Ad hominem attack is in my opinion a concession of defeat in debate.
Created:
Posted in:
There have been several threads about this on the server as late. I've been giving it some thought and the truth is that have no reason to believe that the subject actually is some god(s) moral standard at all. In fact until some god(s) moral standard is outlined (as opposed to some list of moral pronouncements) and that some god(s)actually hold said standard (an impossible task without first proving that some god(s) even exist) I have no reason to believe that any standard is being discussed other than the standard of the poster which he has projected onto his or her concept of some god(s). The truth is I think some theists have gotten the idea that I do not believe based on some moral concept or lack thereof when in fact the standard some theist claims their preferred god(s) is beside the point until there is some demonstration of their claims. I am happy to continue these discussions as hypotheticals but understand that even if your preferred moral standard is perfect and mine is deeply flawed that does not get yo uh an inch closer to proving any god exists. If morals mean nothing or cannot exist without any god(s) and that disturbs you I may have some bad news for you.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
I'm not much for the word evil. The food industry as a whole is unethical for encouraging over consumption of all kinds and especially the overconsumption of sugar. They got into it with the best of intentions (arguably) but unhealthy eating habits are the cornerstone of their buisness.
Same with oil. Perhaps oil saves lives with heat and power they got into it with the best of intentions (arguably). Perhaps there is a better way to produce power or cut down on power consumption but the energy industry as a whole is run somewhat unethically and whith little concern for environmental issues and sustainability when measured against quarterly profits.
These aren't straw men they are very real issues.
Individuals male up the whole. Is a Baker not participating willingly in an unethical system where he profits from sugar subsidies effects on the cost of the sugar he uses to bake with?
In fact the further you pull back your focus the more interconnected the flawed system becomes and the more flaws there are being perpetuated by more people.
Without sugar subsidies is there a baker?
Created:
-->
@Danielle
Those arguments seem pretty pertinent to me. Government subsidies are among the factors that can effect capitalist economies. It seems worth addressing.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
I believed in Santa who was my standard of gift giving. He first chose me to wrap Christmas gifts. Then, in watching the Miracle on 34th Street's message, I came to believe. My standard does not originate from or in myself. It is the revelation of Someone else who is logically necessary for receiving Xmas gifts . Then I turned 7.
Well stated
Created:
-->
@Danielle
Well 3RU7AL decided to get pedantic about it. Good luck he is a much more skilled interlocutor and logician than I am.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You say southern Baptists aren't real Christians southern Baptists say you aren't a Christian. You and the southern Baptist say that mormons and jehovah witnesses aren't real Christians and they day neither of you are.
Without some clear objective definition we can all accept all your claims are subjective to the point of being useless.
Maybe there are no true Christians because there is no Christian god. Reality is certainly not what is being described in the bible as near as we can make put from the physical evidence regarding the formation of the solar system.
Anyway discussion with you is mostly pointless you can't even give useful definitions that was mostly for the other Christians (by the way in this context I am defining a christian as a person who claims to be Christian but whom other self identified Christians disagree with so you all fit my definition) who are trying to claim some objective standard and sticking to their definition of the Yahweh (however logically contradictory it becomes rather than moving the goal post back and forth rather than having an actual conversation) so no actual reply is needed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Mopac claims that only eastern orthodox Christians are "true Christians" and that all others are guilty of apostasy (presumably this means less moral than those who are not guilty of apostasy). Apparently Christian =/= a single objective standard of morals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I think the problem for the atheist is that if their position is labeled a worldview - then that implicitly means they too a religion.
This is a little silly too. Their are religious atheists. Does an atheist bhudist have two religions? No of course not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I gave at least one example and I know others have too. If your claim is that the classic Greek skeptics believed in any firm of evolution you need to
A: explain what form exactly this belief took
And
B: somehow demonstrate that they believed in it.
As far as I know they simply could not have. I would be happy to look into any link you want to send me.
And by the way this
it might be the case that some atheists deny evolution, but even this would not be enough to deny that evolution is a doctrine of atheistic worldview.
Is nonsense. Self contradictory nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@logicae
If there were truly no evidence that would mean no body... no blood... no signs of a struggle. I would gave to conclude that no evidence of murder = no murder and no murder = no murderer. At most we have a missing person case.
Perhaps I should clarify that there is no sufficient evidence of any event before by which I mean observable demonstrable evidence (preferably subjected to the peer review process). If you have any such evidence you may be entitled to a Nobel prize.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@logicae
Because we have no evidence of what came before the event colloquially known as the big bang or even if before has any meaning in the context. Our best current cosmological model does not make any claims concerning a "beginning".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@logicae
It is beyond current human epistemological limits to say why there is stuff rather than no stuff. That does not give us license to anthropomorphize the universe which gives every indication of being nothing but a collection of naturalistic processes one following from the other in progression of cause and effect.
As for truth being used as a synonym for existence I don't have a problem with that as long as it is not an attempt to smuggle more in with the word than can actually be demonstrated/observed to exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@logicae
Empty space within the physical universe exists. I'm not sure how you would even refer to a not a thing.
Created: