OK, Dave, in deference to Tank's legitimate concerns about a flame war, I will postpone the well-mannered debate and instead ask for a general overview of humanism. It is not a subject that has been explained to me in depth, so I would like to take the opportunity to discover your beliefs.
Now, I do understand you to be talking about secular humanism, as opposed to Renaissance humanism. Is that correct?
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Excellent topic for discussion.
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 12, 2018, 03:59:26 PM
OK, Dave, in deference to Tank's legitimate concerns about a flame war, I will postpone the well-mannered debate and instead ask for a general overview of humanism. It is not a subject that has been explained to me in depth, so I would like to take the opportunity to discover your beliefs.
Now, I do understand you to be talking about secular humanism, as opposed to Renaissance humanism. Is that correct?
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Yup, secular Humanism was my point. Having a meal a the moment and will get back to this later. (Also composing my thoughts regarding Mr Trump's little chat with Kim Il Jong, that might take prority.)
Dfl
Let me get my apology in first, please - I am crsp at onsceeen typong - as well our fellow members know, often to their amusement and my embarrassment. So I am using a Bluetooth keyboard for this job, main problem there is it is an American coded job, despite what is on the keys, and does not automatically capitalise. I always edit important stuff before hitting GO.
Right. Meal over, little item on the recent chat done. Quick reminder of the nature of Renaisance humanism taken. Quick refresh on Greek humanism as well, which could be said to be the parent of both Renaisance and secular varieties as I see it.
I feel that I have to start with what seem to be the most commonly accepted tenets of Humanism (boring but essential as a base line):
QuoteAffirmations of Humanism
A Statement of Principles
Drafted by Paul Kurtz
We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.
We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.
We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.
We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.
We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.
We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.
We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.
We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.
We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.
We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.
We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.
We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.
We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.
We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.
We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.
We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.
We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.
We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.
We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.
We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.
We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.
https://secularhumanism.org/index.php/12
Not saying every humanist holds rigidly to all of these but they would probably not quibble much, other than to be pedantic. They may slot in one or two of their own.
I will also offer another of my graphics to show that I feel Humanism and most mainstream religions have things in common but also possibly unreconcilable differences:
(https://imgur.com/fAUqUU3.jpg)
These are, of course, ideals but us fallible humans err all too often . . .
I will leave it there for the moment.
Well done Dave. That pretty much covers it all.
I am acquainted with some of the members of the Secular Humanist group in my town. They may not all measure up to the Secularist affirmations but most of them are pretty close to living that kind of life.
Thank you for the very good explanation. I see several things in the manifesto you quoted that I, as a Christian, can very much agree with. Free Thought ought to be shared by Humanism and Christianity as well, although your graphic is pretty accurate since too often it isn't a shared trait in practice.
Your explanation does invite some questions, to my mind. Tank, am I going to be considered to be debating, assuming I ask such questions in a gentlemanly fashion?
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 13, 2018, 04:36:45 AM
...
Your explanation does invite some questions, to my mind. Tank, am I going to be considered to be debating, assuming I ask such questions in a gentlemanly fashion?
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
The forum is here, in part, so people who wish to debate can. The basic rule is be polite to others. That encompasses no name calling (Yes Arturo I am looking at you :) ) no snide and patronising asides (Yes Davin I'm looking at you >:( ). It's ok to call an idea stupid but not the person presenting the idea. Imagine your grandma is in the room and ready to give you a hard stare for bad manners.
Hmm, Free Thought and religious belief? In my mind they cannot exist together. The Wiki definition also begs questions in it first paragrsph:
QuoteFreethought (or "free thought")[1] is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma. In particular, freethought is strongly tied with rejection of traditional social or religious belief systems.[1][2][3] The cognitive application of freethought is known as "freethinking", and practitioners of freethought are known as "freethinkers".[1][4] The term first came into use in the 17th century in order to indicate people who inquired into the basis of traditional religious beliefs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought
I want to add the word "critically" after "inquired" in the last sentence to qualify it as true Free Thinking in my understanding.
Thought cannot be truly free if it is, in any way, constrained by external rules of any kind. If you cannot consider, without emotional discomfort, that every tenet of a belief can be examined critically for logic, rationslity etc and, if found wanting, discarded then your mind is bound. The mainline religions all have mandatory laws, though often couched as statements, such as the now famous, and infamous, "Allah hu akbar", rather than as "You will . . ." commands.
As a humanist I cannot easily differentiate between religions in their basic forms, especially the main monotheistic versions, so please forgive me if I "cherry pick" between them for examples. I have used a now all too well known example from Islam above but the equivalent certainly exists in Christianity - especially historically, during its more aggressive phases.
So I hold that my graphic is accurate: boundless, free, thought and prescriptive religion cannot co-exist. But free thought is not, inherently, without disbenefits! Following a rail can be more comfortable than stumbling about on unmarked tracks without a map. (But also less fun.)
[Comment about criticality modified, it is only my opinion, I need to read more on that 17thC movement to find jydt what the were up to.]
Quote from: Tank on June 13, 2018, 06:34:47 AM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 13, 2018, 04:36:45 AM
...
Your explanation does invite some questions, to my mind. Tank, am I going to be considered to be debating, assuming I ask such questions in a gentlemanly fashion?
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
The forum is here, in part, so people who wish to debate can. The basic rule is be polite to others. That encompasses no name calling (Yes Arturo I am looking at you :) ) no snide and patronising asides (Yes Davin I'm looking at you >:( ). It's ok to call an idea stupid but not the person presenting the idea. Imagine your grandma is in the room and ready to give you a hard stare for bad manners.
And, if you call an idea stupid you should be prepared to fully justify your opinion. If it is only an opinion state this, it may have no more value than your oponent's opinion. If you claim it as a fact then you must back that claim up by citing objective sources.
I grant that Free Thought and religion have been put at odds, but I suppose I mean less Free Thought as specifically opposed to the supernatural and more freedom of thought, in which you and I are both free to consider issues and we simply start with different first principles.
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
This is where it starts getting philosophical - "What do you mean by "thought"?" I suppose, technically, it is any idea, concept etc that occurs to the individual. But I would, in this context, say that that "thought" should be open to discussion with others if the "thinker" wishes. This, in my mind, applies mainly to thoughts about the origin and nature of the Universe, why some of us just do not get this supernatural stuff at all. What is the nature ofvtge supernatural? If it cannot be detected by any known means does it exist at all or do we need new detectors? If it cannot be detected then why should anyone believe in supernatural beings? Why are prayers only "answered" on a random, chance selection basis. Why is it "God's will" whether the patient survives or dies? Etc.
Can you aa a self-described practising Christian safely, objectively and honestly think about such? Hmm, I suppose the equally valid question is whether I can be objective with such ideas. Best I can offer is that no-one gave me "instruction" in independant thinking. Rather the reverse, religious instruction was mandatory in school when I was a kid and we were sent to Sunday school just so our parents could have a couple of hours free of us! But, from about age 10, I argued about the Bible and was "shown the door" from three churches, Catholic, High Anglican and Methodist! Never mind, gave me more time to read science books and experiment . . .
So I think that I am a born atheist, hunanism came a couple of years later when I read a poster about it and realised that I was not alone - just too young to join the local group.
Ah so many directions to go.... But I will start with your question, Why should anyone believe in the supernatural if it cannot be detect?
First, I apologize for any typos. I desperately wish for a modern landscape slider smartphone with qwerty. But on screen is what I have, so alas...!
First, do you accept as fact that if a thing is true, it is true whether you A. Like it or not B. Believe it or not C. Understand it or not, and D. Even know about it or not? This isn't a trick question, I am not referring to anything in particular, but only something that IS TRUE.
Because 'Nobody really understands much about it, therefore it must be nonsense' is actually not an argument. It is an assertion that human beings have both the capacity and means to comprehend the entirety of the universe, and that our time is the utmost pinnacle of human knowledge and understanding.
Lest you think me unfair, I argue this same point to Christians who think because they don't understand how something works, it must be supernatural in origin.
I have more to say on this point, but I do want establish that we are agreed here before we move on.
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 13, 2018, 02:46:38 PM
First, do you accept as fact that if a thing is true, it is true whether you A. Like it or not B. Believe it or not C. Understand it or not, and D. Even know about it or not? This isn't a trick question, I am not referring to anything in particular, but only something that IS TRUE.
Because 'Nobody really understands much about it, therefore it must be nonsense' is actually not an argument. It is an assertion that human beings have both the capacity and means to comprehend the entirety of the universe, and that our time is the utmost pinnacle of human knowledge and understanding.
Lest you think me unfair, I argue this same point to Christians who think because they don't understand how something works, it must be supernatural in origin.
I have more to say on this point, but I do want establish that we are agreed here before we move on.
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Na we don't get it here, it's better you try elsewhere.
Wish you well.
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 13, 2018, 02:46:38 PM
...
First, I apologize for any typos. I desperately wish for a modern landscape slider smartphone with qwerty. But on screen is what I have, so alas...!
...
Don't worry what can't be understood should be queried by those reading. And the chances are that Dave will out typo you anyway.
Quote from: Bad Penny II on June 13, 2018, 03:03:49 PM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 13, 2018, 02:46:38 PM
First, do you accept as fact that if a thing is true, it is true whether you A. Like it or not B. Believe it or not C. Understand it or not, and D. Even know about it or not? This isn't a trick question, I am not referring to anything in particular, but only something that IS TRUE.
Because 'Nobody really understands much about it, therefore it must be nonsense' is actually not an argument. It is an assertion that human beings have both the capacity and means to comprehend the entirety of the universe, and that our time is the utmost pinnacle of human knowledge and understanding.
Lest you think me unfair, I argue this same point to Christians who think because they don't understand how something works, it must be supernatural in origin.
I have more to say on this point, but I do want establish that we are agreed here before we move on.
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Na we don't get it here, it's better you try elsewhere.
Wish you well.
BPII. Play nice. Lizard is new here.
Quote from: Tank on June 13, 2018, 03:20:31 PM
Quote from: Bad Penny II on June 13, 2018, 03:03:49 PM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 13, 2018, 02:46:38 PM
First, do you accept as fact that if a thing is true, it is true whether you A. Like it or not B. Believe it or not C. Understand it or not, and D. Even know about it or not? This isn't a trick question, I am not referring to anything in particular, but only something that IS TRUE.
Because 'Nobody really understands much about it, therefore it must be nonsense' is actually not an argument. It is an assertion that human beings have both the capacity and means to comprehend the entirety of the universe, and that our time is the utmost pinnacle of human knowledge and understanding.
Lest you think me unfair, I argue this same point to Christians who think because they don't understand how something works, it must be supernatural in origin.
I have more to say on this point, but I do want establish that we are agreed here before we move on.
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Na we don't get it here, it's better you try elsewhere.
Wish you well.
BPII. Play nice. Lizard is new here.
Apart from that he is not preaching (any more than I am) but countering or questioning things that I have put to him. Legit debate tactics.
If you are not willing to question your own beliefs, or try to see them through another's perception, then the best place may be a nice, dry cave where you can contemplate your own navel without distraction.
"ὁ ... ἀνεξέταστος βίος οὐ βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ", said Socrates
Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.
I did offer the debate as well.
@ Tank - akreafy ezplauned, and spologided fir mu typong fisability!
pologies
I'm pretty hard to offend. We're cool. "Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused."
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Dfr wrote:
QuoteBut I will start with your question, Why should anyone believe in the supernatural if it cannot be detect?
[...]
First, do you accept as fact that if a thing is true, it is true whether you A. Like it or not B. Believe it or not C. Understand it or not, and D. Even know about it or not? This isn't a trick question, I am not referring to anything in particular, but only something that IS TRUE.
Always a good question, and always a tough one! To my mind a thing must not only be TRUE but must have that quality testable in some way that agrees with natural science.. Granted that there are things we have yet to understand, let alone to discover. I can accept things "on faith", say in a science lesson where a full explanation would take longer than the whole course. But if the instructor said, "I would like you to accept that men are made of clay . . ." my immediate response might be , "Are you speaking metaphorically, in terms of shared mineral content or literally?" If the answer was, "Literally", I have the choice of requesting a substantiated proof or walking out and demanding a refund.
Can there ever be a "substantiated proof" to the claims of religion? Let's take prayer. The stats of being saved by intercessory prayer suggest, basically, that it is no better than chance or are inconclusive at best:
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/longawaited-medical-study-questions-the-power-of-prayer.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer
Joint prayer has a binding, affirming effect on the prayers, but this is true for any group holding a common belief who join for "celebration" whether the supernatural is involved or not. I have felt it myself.
The prayers of individuals, repeated alone and often, may have a "self-conditioning" effect, a kind of self-hypnosis. Again, the supernatural is not required, secular meditation techniques and groups abound.
What the seculars don't have is the historical infra-structure and "advertising" power of the established religions. Perhaps, in the Internet world, the "advertising" is easier to come by, but still the churches have more cash and cachet!
So, I believe in the limited power of prayer in the first person and in groups in a non-religious sense, but consider it more psychological than paranormal. Intercessory prayer might, if a believer is suffering, on a cusp, and knows that prayer is being pushed their way it might well infuse enough "willpower" to help them fight their condition. But, again, more likely a phycholigical response.
If the patient is totally unaware the laws of chance seem to apply.
So yes, the unproven should not be discarded without due examination. If it shows definite evidence that it actually works, though by unknown principles, it deserves its chance. So religion serves a purpose for millions, whether it makes them calmer, happier, kinder, more moral, gives them a focus, saves their lives or anything else that works - on the psychological level. Of course it also invokes extreme, even organised violence in some.
I just don't want kids indoctrinated with beliefs that appear to have no solid basis in fact. Salutary lessons, allegorical teaching tales, moral and ethical leadership examples, even meditation etc are all necessary in forming character and personality, but they do not need a supernatural foundation to work IMHO.
I was given a 5% chance of surviving my heart attack. Laying there, very ill after the procedure that saved my life, a lay preacher asked if she could pray for me. My response was, "If it makes you feel better." I did appologise and explained my humanism. There is a saying, "There are no atheists in foxholes", there was definitely one in my personal crater in health. Pascal can keep his wager.
I am not going to ask you to take a bunch of things on faith. I am simply establishing a basic idea that a thing that is true is true regardless of its testability. Likewise a thing that is untrue is false whether science can demonstrate its falsity or not.
An example is fairly close to hand. Your statement of scientific provability is empiricism or a very near relation. But can you prove empiricism, empirically? Of course not. That would be circular reasoning.
But there is another reason you will be hard-pressed to either prove or disprove religion scientifically. The scientific method involves creating a hypothesis and repeating the same stimulus or cause many times and looking for a consistent effect. But what is the stimulus in religion? Is it not the actions of the divine? So you would need to be God to provide the stimulus for the experiments that would prove the existence or lack thereof of God.
As to being able to observe God, you asked if either does not exist or if we just need new instruments. I believe there is a third option. It is possible that He exists, and we are not, nor will we be, able to see or measure Him. We may be able to see His influence in the world, however.
If I may present a hypothetical : Let us say we live in a two dimensional universe. All has length and width, but no depth. Let us say that a sphere suddenly passes through our universe. What would we see? We would not see a sphere, nor would we even have any frame of reference to conjecture a sphere. We would see a point, which would transform for no apparent reason into a gradually expanding circle (if it is a slowly moving sphere), which as its point of maximum circumference juxtaposed upon our 2d universe would then become a gradually shrinking circle, then a point, and then it would be gone.
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 13, 2018, 07:26:45 PM
I am not going to ask you to take a bunch of things on faith. I am simply establishing a basic idea that a thing that is true is true regardless of its testability. Likewise a thing that is untrue is false whether science can demonstrate its falsity or not.
An example is fairly close to hand. Your statement of scientific provability is empiricism or a very near relation. But can you prove empiricism, empirically?
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
What you said is true. However we take the stance that the best possible way to know if something is true or not is to test those things.
Yeah, sorry, went off on one there!
I think that I can only accept something as true, unconditionally, if its veracity is provable in some way. It may be true that, under certain conditions or circumstances, prayer works through some agency (which I think is the prayer's own mind.)
What you describe, for me, is an abstract truth - sufficient unto itself. Sorry, for this pragmatist that does not compute!
As for empiricism . . . I'll admit that I have not been there for decades, and, at 73, my memory is gappy and with my current chest bug I am not inclined to get deep into refreshing things. I am panting a bit breathless already and aching all over. (And there is probably abother 4 hours of this to go - oh joy.) But, for the monent, I am going to say that whilst empiricism is a useful tool for examining other knowledge, it is a but tool. Difficult to examine a "thought-tool" with itself to test its efficasy.
I have used all kinds of "tools" to test things without knowing exactly how they work. That the results of the test can be verified by maths, theory or some other means gives me confidence. But, if critical, I like an independant test as well.
For some things there is no possible independant test, therefore they cannot be held to be absolutely true in my book. That may change in the future.
Ah sorry, I was editing while you were posting.
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 13, 2018, 07:26:45 PM
As to being able to observe God, you asked if either does not exist or if we just need new instruments. I believe there is a third option. It is possible that He exists, and we are not, nor will we be, able to see or measure Him. We may be able to see His influence in the world, however.
Correct. Or, we may not be able to see him unless he voluntarily discloses himself - also known as "revelation." And he may decide to disclose himself to the individual in a way that is undetectable to a third party. For those types of disclosures, the recipient would have a basis for faith, but could not prove it to or convince anyone else. The scientific method may simply be an irrelevant tool in the search for the divine.
I no longer seem to recognise the post that I attempted to answer, Dfr. Was the "editing" you mentioned that of the original post that I was currently answering?
Not on, mate. You moved the goalposts behind my back whilst I was in the process of kicking. I think we should try to keep to a single area per post, sometimes even a short, simple question needs a long, complex response.
And, if you want to seriously change your posts please don''t edit the one being answered, reiterate or clarify in a new post. Do only what you can do in a face to face debate.
Now, what is your response to my explanation of my understanding of the nature of prayer? Let's clear that up, so far you have showered me with questions without fully countering my points, ain't gonna play that game.
Also remember thst I have no doctrine to follow, my answers are merely my personal understanding. I am also, being a pragmatist at heart, well out of date regarding esoteric philosophy.
The usual roles are reversed here, normally, on a secular forum, the religious person is the defendant protecting his or her beliefs against the "prosecution" of the rest. Though, in the more mannered forums, the subjects come singularly. Currently I am the sole humanist and, agreed, though I am only defending against an individual, multiple points per post make it feel more like a multitude shouting all at once!
Quote from: Dave on June 14, 2018, 02:11:04 AMdingulsrly.
Great word. I think it means "acting like an ugly dingo who hasn't eaten in a week."
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 14, 2018, 02:54:27 AM
Quote from: Dave on June 14, 2018, 02:11:04 AMdingulsrly.
Great word. I think it means "acting like an ugly dingo who hasn't eaten in a week."
:grin:
Typos are duch fun!
Going to take the opportunity to add to my last post thus: I used "trial" analogies, I will treat this as a debate - which is what I intended in the first place - in future. Dfr, I will ignore questions on new subjects until the current point has been posed and countered adequately.
Fair. I may have been a bit rude to add to my earlier post. Unintentionally so, but still.
To the question of prayer. First, I'd like to present what prayer is to me.
It is communication with another person, specifically God.
What it is not: The means by which Christians can command a performance from God.
This is why I feel my earlier comments are germaine to the topic of prayer.
I'd like some time to read and digest the article you linked to before I proceed into further discussion on prayer's efficacy and proof thereof, including its supernatural component.
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
The supplicatory position of prayer is acknowledged, even when the "hell and damnation" type priest says something like, "God, strike this man down" the "please" is implicit. And not only Christians pray, it is something, possibly genetic, indulged in by humans all over the world. Even if the target of those prayers might vary considerably.
In parting with a loved one, "(Please) Take care of yourself and come back safe," might be considered a prayer and, to my mind, far more realistic than, "May God go with you." On a more practical, and formal, level prayers are offered to monarchs and national leaders for favours and dispensations. The legal appeal is an evidence supported prayer for clemency.
Prayer is natural, the target and expectations might be otherwise.
Quote from: Dave on June 14, 2018, 02:11:04 AM
The usual roles are reversed here, normally, on a secular forum, the religious person is the defendant protecting his or her beliefs against the "prosecution" of the rest. Though, in the more mannered forums, the subjects come singularly. Currently I am the sole humanist and, agreed, though I am only defending against an individual, multiple points per post make it feel more like a multitude shouting all at once!
Gish Gollopg, a disingenuous debating tactic. Swamp your opponent with questions and when they can't answer all of them claim victory. Named after a famous theist.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 13, 2018, 11:24:16 PM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 13, 2018, 07:26:45 PM
As to being able to observe God, you asked if either does not exist or if we just need new instruments. I believe there is a third option. It is possible that He exists, and we are not, nor will we be, able to see or measure Him. We may be able to see His influence in the world, however.
Correct. Or, we may not be able to see him unless he voluntarily discloses himself - also known as "revelation." And he may decide to disclose himself to the individual in a way that is undetectable to a third party. For those types of disclosures, the recipient would have a basis for faith, but could not prove it to or convince anyone else. The scientific method may simply be an irrelevant tool in the search for the divine.
So you will not, now or ever, be able to see or measure him, but you can still see his influence on the world. But you can still see him if he reveals himself to you. But you still can't, now or ever, see or measure him - unless you cannot explain it, in which case he does exist in some measurable or sensible way, in which only you yourself can be able to measure or sense for yourself.
Isn't there a part in the bible that also says that God is everywhere? Or something to that affect? So in which case shouldn't God's presence be apparent in all aspects of life despite where you are or who he decides to arbitrarily show himself to?
I'm beginning to go with Neil Degrasse Tyson's theory on God is just defined by the people who believe in him because you both gave very different and very contradicting answers. Not to each other of course. Two people having an idea on something doesn't make them mutually exclusive from one another. However I think we should all realize the irony in "you won't ever be able to see or measure him but he exists because "you" can see and measure him"
Quote from: Arturo on June 14, 2018, 07:18:43 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 13, 2018, 11:24:16 PM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 13, 2018, 07:26:45 PM
As to being able to observe God, you asked if either does not exist or if we just need new instruments. I believe there is a third option. It is possible that He exists, and we are not, nor will we be, able to see or measure Him. We may be able to see His influence in the world, however.
Correct. Or, we may not be able to see him unless he voluntarily discloses himself - also known as "revelation." And he may decide to disclose himself to the individual in a way that is undetectable to a third party. For those types of disclosures, the recipient would have a basis for faith, but could not prove it to or convince anyone else. The scientific method may simply be an irrelevant tool in the search for the divine.
So you will not, now or ever, be able to see or measure him, but you can still see his influence on the world. But you can still see him if he reveals himself to you. But you still can't, now or ever, see or measure him - unless you cannot explain it, in which case he does exist in some measurable or sensible way, in which only you yourself can be able to measure or sense for yourself.
Isn't there a part in the bible that also says that God is everywhere? Or something to that affect? So in which case shouldn't God's presence be apparent in all aspects of life despite where you are or who he decides to arbitrarily show himself to?
I'm beginning to go with Neil Degrasse Tyson's theory on God is just defined by the people who believe in him because you both gave very different and very contradicting answers. Not to each other of course. Two people having an idea on something doesn't make them mutually exclusive from one another. However I think we should all realize the irony in "you won't ever be able to see or measure him but he exists because "you" can see and measure him"
If, as some say, "god" is a sort of genetic mental component, an evolutionary survivalist hanger-on, then it is true thst he is everywhere. Well, msybe there are a few humans evolving beyond that.
Carry on.
Quote from: Dave on June 14, 2018, 07:45:07 AM
Quote from: Arturo on June 14, 2018, 07:18:43 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 13, 2018, 11:24:16 PM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 13, 2018, 07:26:45 PM
As to being able to observe God, you asked if either does not exist or if we just need new instruments. I believe there is a third option. It is possible that He exists, and we are not, nor will we be, able to see or measure Him. We may be able to see His influence in the world, however.
Correct. Or, we may not be able to see him unless he voluntarily discloses himself - also known as "revelation." And he may decide to disclose himself to the individual in a way that is undetectable to a third party. For those types of disclosures, the recipient would have a basis for faith, but could not prove it to or convince anyone else. The scientific method may simply be an irrelevant tool in the search for the divine.
So you will not, now or ever, be able to see or measure him, but you can still see his influence on the world. But you can still see him if he reveals himself to you. But you still can't, now or ever, see or measure him - unless you cannot explain it, in which case he does exist in some measurable or sensible way, in which only you yourself can be able to measure or sense for yourself.
Isn't there a part in the bible that also says that God is everywhere? Or something to that affect? So in which case shouldn't God's presence be apparent in all aspects of life despite where you are or who he decides to arbitrarily show himself to?
I'm beginning to go with Neil Degrasse Tyson's theory on God is just defined by the people who believe in him because you both gave very different and very contradicting answers. Not to each other of course. Two people having an idea on something doesn't make them mutually exclusive from one another. However I think we should all realize the irony in "you won't ever be able to see or measure him but he exists because "you" can see and measure him"
If, as some say, "god" is a sort of genetic mental component, an evolutionary survivalist hanger-on, then it is true thst he is everywhere. Well, msybe there are a few humans evolving beyond that.
In that case it makes it all the more important to pass on my genes ;D
Even if God is "everywhere" he may still only reveal himself to human minds as he desires. Quantum particles are "everywhere" but humans have only known about them for less than 1% of our time on earth, and we still don't know all there is. None of this proves God's existence, of course. It simply eliminates any conclusive argument against it.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 14, 2018, 12:21:50 PM
Even if God is "everywhere" he may still only reveal himself to human minds as he desires. Quantum particles are "everywhere" but humans have only known about them for less than 1% of our time on earth, and we still don't know all there is. None of this proves God's existence, of course. It simply eliminates any conclusive argument against it.
As a humanist I would say that he "reveals" himself to human minds as
they desire! If a person is in a suitable mental state maybe an intuition, a sudden solution may seem like an external nessage. I very frequently have thoughts that seem nothing to do with my current problem but, like the Delphi Oracle, if considered long enough have validity in that situation. My subconscious has assembled a pattern from knowledge and experience and shoved a copy into the out tray.
We all do it, but those with the religious gene may, especially if stressed and "blank minded" perceive a thought as a message from their deity. This, if course, only strengthens their belief.
Actually this is getting off the strict intended scope of the thread, beyond that which was in my first post describing Humanism is debate on the differences between the perceptions of that and religion. But, though I am sure entrenched perceptions mean the debate will probably end in a stalemate it is still an enjoyable mental exercise.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 14, 2018, 12:21:50 PM
Even if God is "everywhere" he may still only reveal himself to human minds as he desires. Quantum particles are "everywhere" but humans have only known about them for less than 1% of our time on earth, and we still don't know all there is. None of this proves God's existence, of course. It simply eliminates any conclusive argument against it.
Particles are not everywhere. Even they have spaces between them. Outer Space is defined as having nothing in it. However mass jumps in and out of existence all the time in space. But most of the universe is comprised of stuff we don't even have a clue of what it is, but we know that it is not the mass we are used to; i.e. particles. Because when if someone were to hold it above their hand and then drop it, it would fall right through their hand and take all of their mass it touched along with it because it has the opposite charge to it.
But you're right. None of this neither proves or denies the existence of God. Which was not the intention I was going for. I think my original post in this topic was just to give my two cents. Either way, I'll still stick to the idea that this is how we learn.
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 13, 2018, 07:26:45 PMBut what is the stimulus in religion?
Human need.
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 13, 2018, 07:26:45 PMIs it not the actions of the divine?
It is in some fiction/fantasy I've read.
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 13, 2018, 07:26:45 PMSo you would need to be God to provide the stimulus for the experiments that would prove the existence or lack thereof of God.
My experience of human nature, being a human living among humans for half a century strongly indicates we made them up.
I like bubbles, you blow through a soapy ring and behold, a WONDER!
Balloons are evil, turtle killing wrong, god should never allowed them.
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 13, 2018, 07:26:45 PM
I am not going to ask you to take a bunch of things on faith. I am simply establishing a basic idea that a thing that is true is true regardless of its testability. Likewise a thing that is untrue is false whether science can demonstrate its falsity or not.
Ever read Karl Popper (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper)? Not getting into that here - whole new thread on its own!
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 13, 2018, 07:26:45 PM
An example is fairly close to hand. Your statement of scientific provability is empiricism or a very near relation. But can you prove empiricism, empirically? Of course not. That would be circular reasoning.
Think I responded to this. I refer you to Popper again.
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 13, 2018, 07:26:45 PM
But there is another reason you will be hard-pressed to either prove or disprove religion scientifically.
I have no intention of "disproving" religion per se, it exists therefore it exists. The origin and nature of religion are, decidedly, up for debate. Did our earliest predessesors pray to a "god" or just that the bloody thunder and rain would stop? We will never know how religion started, fair chance it was after language. S far as we can tell we are the only mammals with a "sense" of the supernatural, despite being only 1% genetically different from bonobos and only 2% from pigs. Those genetic differences, whether through walking upright or a gift from the supernatural I don't know, are obviously the critical thing. Somewhere in that lot is the "religious gene."
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 13, 2018, 07:26:45 PM
The scientific method involves creating a hypothesis and repeating the same stimulus or cause many times and looking for a consistent effect. But what is the stimulus in religion? Is it not the actions of the divine? So you would need to be God to provide the stimulus for the experiments that would prove the existence or lack thereof of God.
Your question does not seem well posed to me, but I will try . . .
Quote[...] what is the stimulus in religion?
Er, unlike science, with its "repeat and prove" method it seems that religion has a "repeat and hope" tactic. That gives the no-better-than-chance result from intercessory or anonymous prayer. Even replicating every single controllable factor and variable in any prayer situation does not increase the odds of success. But, like gambling fever, there is always the chance that it will come up trumps if we do it often enough and invest enough "spiritual" currency.
Other kinds of stimulus: humans are historically social animals, we like being in groups with a common purpose, especially groups that we feel are also supportive - there is a reason that some religions are strong on "family", "sisterhood", "brotherhood" and even "patriarchy" and "matriarchy" etc. Not to mention "flock". Positive feedback to reinforce the faith is easy under such circumstances of hierarchical authority.
Of course, fear and violence have been, and still are, used to reinforce the message. Quite a strong stimulus.
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 13, 2018, 07:26:45 PM
As to being able to observe God, you asked if either does not exist or if we just need new instruments. I believe there is a third option. It is possible that He exists, and we are not, nor will we be, able to see or measure Him. We may be able to see His influence in the world, however.
Not sure that you are reiterating my points precisely, but no matter. The effect of "God" can only be detected, measurably, by individual humans, either singularly or in groups. Not going to introduce "group think" just now. The "measure"? The observable effect on that individual's affect or behaviour. Could go either way, postitive or negative. No doubt psychologists could reduce it to a rating, a number, at least a grade from "severely deleterious" to " profoundly benerficial".
Perhaps monitoring serotonin, endorphins, dopamine, oxytosin etc might give a more accurate measurement of the
effect of "God" on individuals, but that is a measurement by analogue only.
In my frame of reference "God" exists - for those with the right genes - in a network of neorons.[/quote]
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 13, 2018, 07:26:45 PM
If I may present a hypothetical : Let us say we live in a two dimensional universe. All has length and width, but no depth. Let us say that a sphere suddenly passes through our universe. What would we see? We would not see a sphere, nor would we even have any frame of reference to conjecture a sphere. We would see a point, which would transform for no apparent reason into a gradually expanding circle (if it is a slowly moving sphere), which as its point of maximum circumference juxtaposed upon our 2d universe would then become a gradually shrinking circle, then a point, and then it would be gone.
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Sorry, getting too far OT I think, as if it were't complex enough!
Can we have one question at a time please?
[Edit included deleting suplus quote codes and correcting typos - surpringly few, perhaps some bugs enhance concentration?]
Phew! I am fed up with this cough, pyrexia, joint ache etc I have awarded myself a DIB (Day In Bed), including a BIB, a LIB and a TIB.
I should have given myself the NID (Non-Internet Day) as well!
Knackered.
Quote from: Dave on June 14, 2018, 04:43:59 PM
Phew! I am fed up with this cough, pyrexia, joint ache etc I have awarded myself a DIB (Day In Bed), including a BIB, a LIB and a TIB.
I should have given myself the NID (Non-Internet Day) as well!
Knackered.
No you shouldn't of.
We are lovely and nice
Conducive to your wellbeing
Dave:
Regarding your point concerning prayer, I have read the articles you linked about studies on intercessory prayer. And the results were mixed, with many researchers concluding that they could not by the results either prove or disprove the efficacy of prayer.
There is one problem that I did not see addressed in either article and it is one I hinted at earlier in my view of what prayer is and is not. Because God is all powerful, He can heal disease and cause various effects not typically found in nature. In fact, the records left by some of the Jewish religious authorities describe Jesus as a 'sorcerer, who led the people astray'. But because God is also a person, not a machine, He can say "No." The prayer has still been answered, but with a refusal.
But the scientists who conducted the study have pretty much equated "the prayer was answered" with "we got what we wanted".
Now, Dave, if there were no God, prayer would be basically what you described in your post: a religion themed pep rally that provides a sense of well-being and possibly the occasional placebo effect. The validity of prayer as anything more than that absolutely hinges on the existence of God, and my prayers as a Christian hinge on the fact that the God of the Bible is that God.
And hence my foundational questions and statements concerning the inadequacy of the scientific method and empiricism to prove or disprove God.
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
I see this is following the familiar pattern where neither of us can willingly concede any points! I prrict that it will soon be a watse of time for bith of us, but a bit of mental exercise in wordmanship and a personal re-affirmation of our disparate beliefs! :grin:
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 15, 2018, 05:08:54 AM
Dave:
Regarding your point concerning prayer, I have read the articles you linked about studies on intercessory prayer. And the results were mixed, with many researchers concluding that they could not by the results either prove or disprove the efficacy of prayer.
I did say some were incle blind experiment into the efficasy of prayer in the medical field. I feelmthat it might appeal more to theists (to have their case proven) than to atheists (unless they tended to be anti-theists out to disprove...) There are so nany demands on time and funding, involving techniques and chemistry that can, predoctably, have more chance of being efficacious than prayer. Having said that I feel that the role of psychology is often sadly ingored by the medical profession. If prayer, freely offered, were in anyway demonstrably helpful in healing I would be happy to support it! Though it might not apply ro such as myself if it helped the person in the next bed - OK!
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 15, 2018, 05:08:54 AM
There is one problem that I did not see addressed in either article and it is one I hinted at earlier in my view of what prayer is and is not. Because God is all powerful, He can heal disease and cause various effects not typically found in nature. In fact, the records left by some of the Jewish religious authorities describe Jesus as a 'sorcerer, who led the people astray'. But because God is also a person, not a machine, He can say "No." The prayer has still been answered, but with a refusal.
But the scientists who conducted the study have pretty much equated "the prayer was answered" with "we got what we wanted".
My appologies, I am going to have to be less than "gentlenanly" here here: saying that your "God" has free will to chose who he saves and who he damns is sophistry, a cop-out. The same can be said of many serious disease vectors, they kill or not as they will. Maybe the world mass of, say, the ebola virus forms a dispersed "supermind" capable of such decisions? Seems no more ridiculous to me than any other form of superbeing. And we can see, measure and analyse those viruses, even if we cannot yet detect their communicative "thoughtwaves" - just have to take those on faith . . .
How can one feel well disposed towards an entity that sometimes chooses to save bad people and condemn the good? "It was God's will . . ," is good for either in the mind of the believer yet explains neither. In fact, anecdotalycat least, the "loss of a good person" has been the cause of a oerjahent rift between a lifelong believer and that beleif - though, were I to research it I might well find that there are as many former non-believes who accepted "God" because a loved one survived an illness - thinking that survival due to the power of prayers that were offered. People should not make important decisions at times of stress or bereavement, but we all do.
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 15, 2018, 05:08:54 AM
Now, Dave, if there were no God, prayer would be basically what you described in your post: a religion themed pep rally that provides a sense of well-being and possibly the occasional placebo effect. The validity of prayer as anything more than that absolutely hinges on the existence of God, and my prayers as a Christian hinge on the fact that the God of the Bible is that God.
Fair enuff. You and I can never reconcile our beliefs, but that does not mean we cannot be good people with good intentions towards humanity. I have even suggested and supported giving funds to our local church - though that was for the mundane convenience of the users in helping them build a toilet! (The church itself is about 800 years old but may be built on an older one.)
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 15, 2018, 05:08:54 AM
And hence my foundational questions and statements concerning the inadequacy of the scientific method and empiricism to prove or disprove God.
Science will always have its, self-admitted, limitations, we are ignorant of stupendously far more than we know - but true scientists are willing to objectively investigate, regardless of whether their hypothesis is found valid on not. No sensible scientist, in my view, will attempt to prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural, emprically, mathematically or however - that is the job of the philosopher and why, I think, such as Dawkins have swapped seats, using their science as a prop.
Psychologists may draw parallels between the effects of religion on the individual or group and, say, the effects of the Beatles or Manchester United or even Charles Manson and the many other charismatic pseudo/religious leaders. But is that absolute proof they are the same mechanism?
And let's not even get started on the nature of "the God of the Bible"!
As I said before, this is only the viewpoint of a single, aspiring, humanist, unbound by doctrine - though, undoubtably, influenced by it! I do not subscribe to any humanist organisation, prefering to supprt them where we mesh and ignore them where we do not - unless I think they are on absolutely the wrong course when I might actively oppose them. My experience is that my line may wiggle a bit but does not seriously diverge from the "mainstream". "Orthodoxy" does not,sit,well with humanists.
Even Humanism, like religion, gets involved in politics, a field that I gave little but contempt for.
Please pardon any typos, typed in bed starting early am!
I am afraid I do not follow the contention that ascribing free will to God is a cop out or sophistry. If He were simply an input/output system like a machine or computer, and given enough time and experimentation we could discover what input it takes to receive a given output, between him and mankind who would actually be God?
At that point man would be God, with God being in the position of a genie minus the three wish limit.
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 15, 2018, 12:37:55 PM
I am afraid I do not follow the contention that ascribing free will to God is a cop out or sophistry. If He were simply an input/output system like a machine or computer, and given enough time and experimentation we could discover what input it takes to receive a given output, between him and mankind who would actually be God?
At that point man would be God, with God being in the position of a genie minus the three wish limit.
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Point of view problem here, maybe.
To my mind if a patient's life of death it at the will of "God" then he can be praised in either case. He can never be wrong. But that, to me, is a cop-out - maybe to you it is the nature of "God"
Bit like saying, "You must honour your father even though he beats the crap out of you daily (for what he sees as faults) and starves you half to death." Fundamental line here, I simply cannot concieve (never could) of
any kind of authority without corresponding responsibility, in this world or any other.
The survivors of an earthquake praise the same "God", for their delivery, that killed thousands of others, by injury or subsequent disease. But is "God" is omnipotent then he must also be omni-culpable. Another cop-out to preserve the conditioning those people would feel uncomfortable without, more to do with themselves than their deity?
Omnipotence must be absolute or nothing. Same goes for the other omnis.
I will cop out of the rest of this post by offering a quotation I am sure you are familiar with:
(https://imgur.com/yiq1w0n.jpg)
It all seems pointless discussing the existence of a myth, when discussing Humanism which is a world view that functions whether or not god(s) exists but for safeties sake operates on the premise that it(they) do not. It is essentially Pascals wager playing the odds that it's safer to accept the odds of 4,000+ to 1 that gods don't exist. If humanity just assumed the null position that without proof of gods existence there is no god it would stop following myths and take responsibility for its own actions. Humans are not toys of some genocidal maniac puppet master, we are quite capable of fucking things up on our own. But as long as 3/4 of the human population believe in some sort of delusion sky daddy humanity can't progress.
I believe I can answer
some questions and provide some insight here into the scientific method. And perhaps some psychological phenomenon for Drfreemlizard.
For something to be considered scientific, it has to be repeatable, and therefore reliable - for testing - in order to figure out if this "something" is true or false. Such in the case of God, you say that he .... well I'll refer to what I believe what you were saying.
QuoteSo you will not, now or ever, be able to see or measure him, but you can still see his influence on the world. But you can still see him if he reveals himself to you. But you still can't, now or ever, see or measure him - unless you cannot explain it, in which case he does exist in some measurable or sensible way, in which only you yourself can be able to measure or sense for yourself.
If this is so, then he should be reliable in some way. And therefore scientific and testable in a lab or some case. If your idea of him is always changing, like I thought before, then perhaps it's more of a wish fulfillment. Which brings me to my next point.
There is a psychological phenomenon that has to do with leadership qualities. It has to do with having and fulfilling a vision. It relates a lot to the article Dave posted from NPR about the families in Mexico raising their children in a different more competent way than United State's parents. In looking at the case of the children there, they have a desire, a "vision" in it's beginning stages, and then they fulfill that desire and their parents give them the blessing to do so. This is why it was so hard to live with my step-parent because I felt my vision was not being fulfilled and faltered hard for several years.
Now, do I know that this is truth? No. But I have my hypothesis and therefore it can be tested. After several tests done on that, from different angles using different methods and analyzing it properly, I can therefore know if what I say it true. I would like it to be true, I would love it to be true, I believe it has the possibility to be true, but that does not make it true.
However, you mentioned Drfreemlizard the results of the link to the study that Dave posted were....inaccurate? If so, this would not be the best place to ask those sorts of questions as I do not think there are any psychologists active on this forum who could tell you why they analyzed the results of the situation as they did. And for background purposes, I think it would probably be best to ask those people who did the study as they have to do a certain amount of research before they can start their methods and formulate a hypothesis. They may have been trying to test prayer answering from different perspectives such as the one they gave and the one you subscribe to. But it all boils down to "does prayer work? and if so which kind? or what kind of perspective should one take to see the efficacy of prayer?"
It all goes back to giving people time and letting be themselves and we will all reach the same conclusion eventually. That was one reason I did not like Richard Dawkins because like one had mentioned before in a video (at the "Honorary HAF Member" thread), he does insult and belittle people. And that is no way to make people believe you - unless you are in a fascist dictatorship, then they have no choice, but then they all want to overthrow and kill you.
So going back to the quote I gave
QuoteSo you will not, now or ever, be able to see or measure him, but you can still see his influence on the world. But you can still see him if he reveals himself to you. But you still can't, now or ever, see or measure him - unless you cannot explain it, in which case he does exist in some measurable or sensible way, in which only you yourself can be able to measure or sense for yourself.
Knowing now what I explained about the scientific method, we can now start to break these ideas down into smaller pieces. First we could separate the answers both you and Bruce (Ecurb) gave. And then break those down into single hypothesis. For example - "you cannot, now or ever, see or measure him" well now we can throw this idea out the window because it's not reliable. It's not repeatable so therefore not reliable for testing. The next part is "you can see his influence on the world". Alright this is testable and repeatable but it is where it gets tricky, for me, because what would be his influence that is not already explained by science? "Tides go in, tides go out, can't explain that" - Bill O'Reilly. If you believe that God is merely a psychological phenomenon that influences things through the actions of others, and the actions that are God's will can only be described when the outcomes are "good" then that brings me to a couple other things - one I mentioned before. What do you describe as good? And is it the same as other people's description of good? Because we all have different values and come from different places and have different experiences that shape who we are and what our definition of "good" is. And this brings me back to the theory that God's identity, plan, ect. or "Will" in this case is projected upon to by those who believe in him because of the shared vision, or at least perceptually, that believers have. And it gets more rambunctious when there is a church because when people share a ideal and get along well, they feel empowered. And that goes back to saying that feeling "good" is apart of God's Will. So saying that when one church finds their selves outsider, their instincts kick in as tribalism and that's when you have angry people like the Westboro Baptist Church and the persecution complex of some members of the Christian faith. They call that "the belly of the beast" in Joseph Campbell's "The Hero's Journey" where all the changes are ready to take place. And from a country wide perspective, Trump and his side kick Mike Pence are the distraction that leads the Hero off of their journey before they get the gall to reconcile with the "father" or in this case, the idea or whatever it is that holds the ultimate power over them. And then after that, the "boon" is given to the Hero - their reward from the result of their actions for defeating the monster that holds the ultimate power over them. And this brings me to my second point - if, say you, find something that is "not good" but to the other person says "yes it is" that may be the point for you to say "this person is influenced by the devil" but they may find that you saying that to be not good. So the fact that we all have a concept of right or wrong shows that we all think alike. But one may take that "influenced by the devil" concept too far and start destroying things that make them feel bad. That's - in depth, how a psychopath thinks. They cannot see beyond the fact that people are just like them. That we all think alike and, given time, we might all just have the same concept for right or wrong. They have to accept that idea that we all have similarities if they are to continue to grow.
For example - Jordan Peterson describes the last thing I mentioned there as a "philosophy of evil" which sure is fine and all, might be scary to some. But I think the idea here is that we all have a connection. While some see something as evil, another sees that as good. And it's important to accept that because it's part of the reconciliation with the ultimate power that holds over the psychopath's life. One may explain this as I did in the paragraph above. Or that, if given a different birth place / path in life, one may have ended up just like those people they thought were so evil - and still think they are doing the right thing. I think that's true, it does give people power and feel empowered - at the end of the day we all work the same underneath.
So I made a long post. Sorry if my one paragraph was long. I couldn't find a place to break them up but since we all have something to say on this subject, I think we will reach conclusion eventually. And hayy, I brought the conversation back to humanism yayy
Another issue is the 'unfalsifiable' nature of the god hypothesis. Which is one reason why the idea so seductive. You can claim anything and everything in the name of god and you can't be proven wrong, which of course is not the same thing as being right.
Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2018, 01:42:21 PM
It all seems pointless discussing the existence of a myth, when discussing Humanism which is a world view that functions whether or not god(s) exists but for safeties sake operates on the premise that it(they) do not. It is essentially Pascals wager playing the odds that it's safer to accept the odds of 4,000+ to 1 that gods don't exist. If humanity just assumed the null position that without proof of gods existence there is no god it would stop following myths and take responsibility for its own actions. Humans are not toys of some genocidal maniac puppet master, we are quite capable of fucking things up on our own. But as long as 3/4 of the human population believe in some sort of delusion sky daddy humanity can't progress.
As a mental exercise I enjoy it, and that is not to belittle the value of that "myth" to those who believe in it.
Theists usually come as one variety at a time in these discussions. I try to keep to that denominations but, in my mind, the basics are little different whether the deity be a supernatural entity, a river, an animal or whatever. My main interest is the effect of belief on the way humans live their lives and interact with others.
Though I am of the school that considers morals and ethics are part of our evolutionary/genetic survival kit (similar, if rudimentary, systems exist in other animal groups - and I don't think that can easily be dismissed as instinct) perhaps we have to offer some organised religions historical thanks for our current, more or less, moral and ethical status. It is, historically, only a very short tine ago, what, three generations, that we shrugged off most of Christianity's authority in England. The process proceeds in Ireland somewhat more slowly but seems to be accelerating. Quite a lot of the reasons for that loss of authority can probably be laid at religion's own door due to it's sometimes arrogant opinion of its own history. America seems to be reversing this trend currently, going against the movement even in some parts of the Islamic world.
But our basic modern ethos is still based on fundamental values promoted by the RCC, historically - even as they went against them in their own actions and behaviour. I am always a bit jealous of the ethos of our local parochial primary school, the kids are reasonably quiet and well mannered, their ratings are always high . . . I was even surprised to find at least a couple of the teachers are atheists! I was also pleased to see that the previous, very ambitious, head's omnipresent religious symbolism has been replaced by stuff more related to houw we should respect our fellows.
I think I said that, for some, religion has a valid place - believe in anything you like that does gentle more good than damage to others. Given the power I would deny them, and even humanists, from doing more than passively offering tge belief to others. But would have to find a way of maintaining that afore mentioned ethos in at least schools dealing with kids up to 12. Morals and ethics are more widely taught in this country, at senior level, than before, if only in lessons on citizenship and correct relationship behaviour. That the church's yoke has been broke may be indicated in that the latter may apply to any kind of gendre mix.
The generation that ticks "Christian" on the census form simply because their head was wetted at their parent's request (because it was "the done thing" socially) is thinning out now. Society is still evolving out of the constraints of the past and needs to find something to fill a few gaps. Increasing violence is partly due to increasing pressures, socially and financially - and antisocial Internet media does not help. Recognising that most of the most violent countries in the world are also highly religious it seems that religion is not a universal panacea, a cure-all, for mankind's ills. And, historically, never was - many wars had a religious origin since pre-Roman times. Greed (another trap religion often fell into) is the other one. The RCC became the biggest commercial industry on Earth at one point. Some American and African pastors might be able to rival it now though in terms of collective wealth per denomination.
So that myth still has teeth, to ignore it is like trying to ignore the 'flu. Liable to
in affect you or someone you know and value if precautions are not taken. Those that enjoy catching 'flu must be allowed to do so, civil rights an' all that, but then shut away from others until "cured". Those who chose religion have the right to do so, if they are of a personal age/maturity to make an educated and uncoerced choice. But they should not have the right to evangelise, prosetylise or otherwise seek to influence others directly.
Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2018, 02:47:27 PM
Another issue is the 'unfalsifiable' nature of the god hypothesis. Which is one reason why the idea so seductive. You can claim anything and everything in the name of god and you can't be proven wrong, which of course is not the same thing as being right.
That's true. That goes right along with the God of The Gaps theory(?) and a cop-out and persecution complex that me and Dave were speaking about. It doesn't help that we have aggressive individuals on both sides, and ever more so that they have grouped together. But that's the way it is. One person's hero is another person's villain. They have the power.
(https://media.tenor.co/images/3c33699fb5a8b5ed546c9b292097f070/raw)
(https://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/underestimate_power_star_wars.gif)
Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2018, 02:47:27 PM
Another issue is the 'unfalsifiable' nature of the god hypothesis. Which is one reason why the idea so seductive. You can claim anything and everything in the name of god and you can't be proven wrong, which of course is not the same thing as being right.
Tried to cover that in my comments about "God" being right whether he saves or kills - it's all in the mind . . .
Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2018, 01:42:21 PM
It all seems pointless discussing the existence of a myth, when discussing Humanism which is a world view that functions whether or not god(s) exists but for safeties sake operates on the premise that it(they) do not. It is essentially Pascals wager playing the odds that it's safer to accept the odds of 4,000+ to 1 that gods don't exist. If humanity just assumed the null position that without proof of gods existence there is no god it would stop following myths and take responsibility for its own actions. Humans are not toys of some genocidal maniac puppet master, we are quite capable of fucking things up on our own. But as long as 3/4 of the human population believe in some sort of delusion sky daddy humanity can't progress.
That's the way it goes though. The only way for humanism to be bad is to show that there is a god and that god will punish people for being humanists. Because in itself, there is nothing inherently wrong with humans figuring out how to solve their problems through human means (not like we have any other means, but I think you get what I mean).
Look at the mass shootings in America. "Thoughts and prayers" only appear to be making the problem worse, but there has been a bit of movement lately in some states to make some laws, which is good, but also a humanistic approach. Humans make things better, supernatural things do nothing.
Further thoughts.
The discussion goes out on too many tangents, attacking the periphery of humanism, where humanists have failed. This addresses the failures of it, ignoring the massive amounts of successes. Bringing a god into the discussion while ignoring the massive amounts of nothing and failures on that side, while only bringing up parts where it cannot be shown absolutely to not have caused harm, is, in my opinion, a dishonest tactic. Though it is a common tactic.
Quote from: Davin on June 15, 2018, 03:17:48 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2018, 01:42:21 PM
It all seems pointless discussing the existence of a myth, when discussing Humanism which is a world view that functions whether or not god(s) exists but for safeties sake operates on the premise that it(they) do not. It is essentially Pascals wager playing the odds that it's safer to accept the odds of 4,000+ to 1 that gods don't exist. If humanity just assumed the null position that without proof of gods existence there is no god it would stop following myths and take responsibility for its own actions. Humans are not toys of some genocidal maniac puppet master, we are quite capable of fucking things up on our own. But as long as 3/4 of the human population believe in some sort of delusion sky daddy humanity can't progress.
That's the way it goes though. The only way for humanism to be bad is to show that there is a god and that god will punish people for being humanists. Because in itself, there is nothing inherently wrong with humans figuring out how to solve their problems through human means (not like we have any other means, but I think you get what I mean).
Look at the mass shootings in America. "Thoughts and prayers" only appear to be making the problem worse, but there has been a bit of movement lately in some states to make some laws, which is good, but also a humanistic approach. Humans make things better, supernatural things do nothing.
Further thoughts.
The discussion goes out on too many tangents, attacking the periphery of humanism, where humanists have failed. This addresses the failures of it, ignoring the massive amounts of successes. Bringing a god into the discussion while ignoring the massive amounts of nothing and failures on that side, while only bringing up parts where it cannot be shown absolutely to not have caused harm, is, in my opinion, a dishonest tactic. Though it is a common tactic.
Agreed on all points.
Quote from: Davin on June 15, 2018, 03:17:48 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2018, 01:42:21 PM
It all seems pointless discussing the existence of a myth, when discussing Humanism which is a world view that functions whether or not god(s) exists but for safeties sake operates on the premise that it(they) do not. It is essentially Pascals wager playing the odds that it's safer to accept the odds of 4,000+ to 1 that gods don't exist. If humanity just assumed the null position that without proof of gods existence there is no god it would stop following myths and take responsibility for its own actions. Humans are not toys of some genocidal maniac puppet master, we are quite capable of fucking things up on our own. But as long as 3/4 of the human population believe in some sort of delusion sky daddy humanity can't progress.
That's the way it goes though. The only way for humanism to be bad is to show that there is a god and that god will punish people for being humanists. Because in itself, there is nothing inherently wrong with humans figuring out how to solve their problems through human means (not like we have any other means, but I think you get what I mean).
Look at the mass shootings in America. "Thoughts and prayers" only appear to be making the problem worse, but there has been a bit of movement lately in some states to make some laws, which is good, but also a humanistic approach. Humans make things better, supernatural things do nothing.
Further thoughts.
The discussion goes out on too many tangents, attacking the periphery of humanism, where humanists have failed. This addresses the failures of it, ignoring the massive amounts of successes. Bringing a god into the discussion while ignoring the massive amounts of nothing and failures on that side, while only bringing up parts where it cannot be shown absolutely to not have caused harm, is, in my opinion, a dishonest tactic. Though it is a common tactic.
Yup, can't find much to argue with there either, Davin.
Though we all share some things in common, and may cooperate in need, we are all individuals in reality. Thus I avoid "organised humanism" and try to follow those principles I feel are right - regardless of their origin. Better, for me, to do one or two, small but nice things a day than be a right barstard all week and ask for forgiveness on Sunday.
Quote from: Dave on June 15, 2018, 03:58:27 PM
Quote from: Davin on June 15, 2018, 03:17:48 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2018, 01:42:21 PM
It all seems pointless discussing the existence of a myth, when discussing Humanism which is a world view that functions whether or not god(s) exists but for safeties sake operates on the premise that it(they) do not. It is essentially Pascals wager playing the odds that it's safer to accept the odds of 4,000+ to 1 that gods don't exist. If humanity just assumed the null position that without proof of gods existence there is no god it would stop following myths and take responsibility for its own actions. Humans are not toys of some genocidal maniac puppet master, we are quite capable of fucking things up on our own. But as long as 3/4 of the human population believe in some sort of delusion sky daddy humanity can't progress.
That's the way it goes though. The only way for humanism to be bad is to show that there is a god and that god will punish people for being humanists. Because in itself, there is nothing inherently wrong with humans figuring out how to solve their problems through human means (not like we have any other means, but I think you get what I mean).
Look at the mass shootings in America. "Thoughts and prayers" only appear to be making the problem worse, but there has been a bit of movement lately in some states to make some laws, which is good, but also a humanistic approach. Humans make things better, supernatural things do nothing.
Further thoughts.
The discussion goes out on too many tangents, attacking the periphery of humanism, where humanists have failed. This addresses the failures of it, ignoring the massive amounts of successes. Bringing a god into the discussion while ignoring the massive amounts of nothing and failures on that side, while only bringing up parts where it cannot be shown absolutely to not have caused harm, is, in my opinion, a dishonest tactic. Though it is a common tactic.
Yup, can't find much to argue with there either, Davin.
Though we all share some things in common, and may cooperate in need, we are all individuals in reality. Thus I avoid "organised humanism" and try to follow those principles I feel are right - regardless of their origin. Better, for me, to do one or two, small but nice things a day than be a right barstard all week and ask for forgiveness on Sunday.
Pretty much as I see it. We can and do argue about how to solve the problems, and whether those solutions cause harm or how much... anyway, the arguments are about the actions of humanists not humanism itself.
The argument should be whether humanism as a whole works. But that is a losing argument for theists who are against humanism. Because when humanism is compared to trusting in the supernatural, it's a demonstrable success and the supernatural is a demonstrable failure.
Hmm, interesting, got me thinking there, Davin.
For the humanist the motivation for right action is mainly their humanism, maybe with 98% altruism I, for one, enjoy the warm glow I feel when I see pleasure in another's face. So I get my payback that way.
If a theist were to carry out a similar action, but motivated by their belief, "the Christian thing to do" and, maybe, earning brownie points for the "next life," would both actions have the same, intrinsic, value to the person who benefits?
On the other side of the coin is taking responsibility for wrong action. Or in the case of some religious individuals and groups shrugging the blame off onto their deity. "I do God's work!", "God made me do it," "God forgive me for doing it."
The atheist or humanist takes all the rap. Theirs is the only responsibility. (Special cases apply in the armed forces.)
Of course, insanity is a plea that all may make.
Quote from: Dave on June 15, 2018, 04:30:33 PM
Hmm, interesting, got me thinking there, Davin.
For the humanist the motivation for right action is mainly their humanism, maybe with 98% altruism I, for one, enjoy the warm glow I feel when I see pleasure in another's face. So I get my payback that way.
If a theist were to carry out a similar action, but motivated by their belief, "the Christian thing to do" and, maybe, earning brownie points for the "next life," would both actions have the same, intrinsic, value to the person who benefits?
That will depend on whatever other things you attach to outside of humanism. I don't fully subscribe to any system, so if you're asking me personally, I can answer.
When considering the benefactor, if the outcome is the same then there's no difference.
When considering the actor, the outcome is not the same. For a humanist, the actor is getting what they expect to get. For the theist actor, they are expecting a lot more than what they actually get.
This means that overall, even in this kind of clinical consideration, theist actions are net worse. This is only if we consider this in a purely clinical environment and not letting those dirty motivations and secondary effects get in the way. I think that the theist acting offers up many negative things as secondary and real world effects.
Quote from: Davin on June 15, 2018, 05:02:21 PM
Quote from: Dave on June 15, 2018, 04:30:33 PM
Hmm, interesting, got me thinking there, Davin.
For the humanist the motivation for right action is mainly their humanism, maybe with 98% altruism I, for one, enjoy the warm glow I feel when I see pleasure in another's face. So I get my payback that way.
If a theist were to carry out a similar action, but motivated by their belief, "the Christian thing to do" and, maybe, earning brownie points for the "next life," would both actions have the same, intrinsic, value to the person who benefits?
That will depend on whatever other things you attach to outside of humanism. I don't fully subscribe to any system, so if you're asking me personally, I can answer.
When considering the benefactor, if the outcome is the same then there's no difference.
When considering the actor, the outcome is not the same. For a humanist, the actor is getting what they expect to get. For the theist actor, they are expecting a lot more than what they actually get.
This means that overall, even in this kind of clinical consideration, theist actions are net worse. This is only if we consider this in a purely clinical environment and not letting those dirty motivations and secondary effects get in the way. I think that the theist acting offers up many negative things as secondary and real world effects.
Think I will vote for any good deed, that produces a measurable output, providing the "payback" to the actor in no way refuces its overall effect. Thus I would have difficulty supporting, say, missionary medics who provided treatment only to those of faith or who were willing to be converted. Probably does not happen these days, read an account of such behaviour in the 19thC. "Need should be fulfilled regardless of creed" - sure that is a quotation from somewhere. Though I think "Need should be fulfilled regardless of deed" possibly requires more consideration.
If I, as a Christian, love my grandchildren and act accordingly, in the context of my faith, is that a net negative for the world when compared to the humanist who loves his grandchildren in the context of his humanism? It sounds like that is the argument being made.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 16, 2018, 06:44:22 AM
If I, as a Christian, love my grandchildren and act accordingly, in the context of my faith, is that a net negative for the world when compared to the humanist who loves his grandchildren in the context of his humanism? It sounds like that is the argument being made.
Yes it is because you a teaching your grandchildren to value faith over facts and that ancient mythologies are more valuable than our current understand of humanity. You are locking them into the past, our ignorant and superstitious past. You are setting up a fundamental dichotomy in their psyche that we are the puppets of an almighty puppet master not natural organisms with all the faults in the being evolved brings. You are continuing the mythology of a future everlasting life for which there is not evidence whatsoever. You are fooling them that this is not their one and only life. You are telling them that ultimately a mythological superstition is responsible for the creation and running of the universe. You are telling them that they are just the pets of a galactic sky daddy. You are telling then that they are a possession, a slave, a toy, a plaything that can be used, abused and discarded at the whim of a capricious supernatural entity. You are at the end of the day telling them that are worthless.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 16, 2018, 06:44:22 AM
If I, as a Christian, love my grandchildren and act accordingly, in the context of my faith, is that a net negative for the world when compared to the humanist who loves his grandchildren in the context of his humanism? It sounds like that is the argument being made.
Made me think more about it there, Bruce!
I am against any teachings about the nature of the Universe, including humans, that is not supported by science in some way. I do not think children at an impressionable age should be exposed to such. That all children should have moral and ethical instruction, by example pre-school and then through formal education, I am 100% in favour of. Barring genetic, injury or disease problems all parents get the children they educate, pre-school, by their own behaviour. I have seen far too many bad examples in my life of lazy and even cruel parenting - but unless obvious physical or psychological indicators are noticed not a lot can be done about that. Thus it is up to others to try to correct things, often with too little in terms of suitable teachers, time and funding.
Any teaching that involves, say, the promise of "hellfire" for "touching oneself" should earn a long prison sentence in my book. Be interesting, but very time consuming I would guess, to research the relationships between religion, atheism and neurosis in childhood and adulthood. Using sources as objective as possible of course.
Thus, as expressed before, I have a degree of respect for the moral ethos, if not the religious intent, of the local church school. There is no "hellfire and damnation" there and as much comparative religion (understanding others) as strictly Christian. And little overt religious symbolism. That it "graduates" atheists, and even petty criminals, has been demonstrated over the 27 years I have lived here. So no system is perfect against human nature!
But then, how many seemingly deeply religious criminals, committing from petty theft/fraud through paedophilia to plutocratic power-pastors have been arrested since the law stopped kowtowing to the churches?
With local authorities no longer being able to refuse churches planning permission it looks like they are in the ascendency again in America.
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2018, 08:19:53 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 16, 2018, 06:44:22 AM
If I, as a Christian, love my grandchildren and act accordingly, in the context of my faith, is that a net negative for the world when compared to the humanist who loves his grandchildren in the context of his humanism? It sounds like that is the argument being made.
Yes it is because you a teaching your grandchildren to value faith over facts and that ancient mythologies are more valuable than our current understand of humanity. You are locking them into the past, our ignorant and superstitious past.
They can reinterpret as times change, it's OK to be gay so many places now and there's religious that support that.
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2018, 08:19:53 AM
You are setting up a fundamental dichotomy in their psyche that we are the puppets of an almighty puppet master not natural organisms with all the faults in the being evolved brings.
Free range puppets though, we can choose to burn.
We agree we're fundamentally faulty, just not on the why of it.
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2018, 08:19:53 AM
You are continuing the mythology of a future everlasting life for which there is not evidence whatsoever. You are fooling them that this is not their one and only life. You are telling them that ultimately a mythological superstition is responsible for the creation and running of the universe. You are telling them that they are just the pets of a galactic sky daddy. You are telling then that they are a possession, a slave, a toy, a plaything that can be used, abused and discarded at the whim of a capricious supernatural entity. You are at the end of the day telling them that are worthless.
I'm sad you feel that way, Jesus loves us all, even you Tank
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2018, 08:19:53 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 16, 2018, 06:44:22 AM
If I, as a Christian, love my grandchildren and act accordingly, in the context of my faith, is that a net negative for the world when compared to the humanist who loves his grandchildren in the context of his humanism? It sounds like that is the argument being made.
Yes it is because you a teaching your grandchildren to value faith over facts and that ancient mythologies are more valuable than our current understand of humanity. You are locking them into the past, our ignorant and superstitious past. You are setting up a fundamental dichotomy in their psyche that we are the puppets of an almighty puppet master not natural organisms with all the faults in the being evolved brings. You are continuing the mythology of a future everlasting life for which there is not evidence whatsoever. You are fooling them that this is not their one and only life. You are telling them that ultimately a mythological superstition is responsible for the creation and running of the universe. You are telling them that they are just the pets of a galactic sky daddy. You are telling then that they are a possession, a slave, a toy, a plaything that can be used, abused and discarded at the whim of a capricious supernatural entity. You are at the end of the day telling them that are worthless.
You seem to be assuming a lot about what I teach my grandchildren, Tank, and that surprises and disappoints me somewhat. Why do you think I teach them to value faith over facts? Remember, you haven't proven that "no god" is a fact. You pile assumption upon assumption. I don't find any inconsistency between the facts that science teaches us and the faith in a loving God who has a purpose for us. Perhaps you do, but that's you and not me. I don't have any idea what you are talking about when you say that I teach them that we are puppets, pets and playthings. You seem to have a very superficial understanding of faith - at least my faith. But at least I know where you are coming from.
Quote from: Dave on June 16, 2018, 09:49:22 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 16, 2018, 06:44:22 AM
If I, as a Christian, love my grandchildren and act accordingly, in the context of my faith, is that a net negative for the world when compared to the humanist who loves his grandchildren in the context of his humanism? It sounds like that is the argument being made.
Made me think more about it there, Bruce!
I am against any teachings about the nature of the Universe, including humans, that is not supported by science in some way. I do not think children at an impressionable age should be exposed to such. That all children should have moral and ethical instruction, by example pre-school and then through formal education, I am 100% in favour of. Barring genetic, injury or disease problems all parents get the children they educate, pre-school, by their own behaviour. I have seen far too many bad examples in my life of lazy and even cruel parenting - but unless obvious physical or psychological indicators are noticed not a lot can be done about that. Thus it is up to others to try to correct things, often with too little in terms of suitable teachers, time and funding.
Any teaching that involves, say, the promise of "hellfire" for "touching oneself" should earn a long prison sentence in my book. Be interesting, but very time consuming I would guess, to research the relationships between religion, atheism and neurosis in childhood and adulthood. Using sources as objective as possible of course.
Thus, as expressed before, I have a degree of respect for the moral ethos, if not the religious intent, of the local church school. There is no "hellfire and damnation" there and as much comparative religion (understanding others) as strictly Christian. And little overt religious symbolism. That it "graduates" atheists, and even petty criminals, has been demonstrated over the 27 years I have lived here. So no system is perfect against human nature!
But then, how many seemingly deeply religious criminals, committing from petty theft/fraud through paedophilia to plutocratic power-pastors have been arrested since the law stopped kowtowing to the churches?
With local authorities no longer being able to refuse churches planning permission it looks like they are in the ascendency again in America.
Like Tank, you make a lot of assumptions about my particular faith. What churches in America do has nothing to do with the quality of love I have for my grandchildren (which is what my post is about). If you don't want to step outside the bounds of humanism for your world view, I have no problem with that. But you have not made the case that the love or deeds that a Christian has or does is of less value than that of a humanist.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 16, 2018, 05:33:32 PM
Quote from: Dave on June 16, 2018, 09:49:22 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 16, 2018, 06:44:22 AM
If I, as a Christian, love my grandchildren and act accordingly, in the context of my faith, is that a net negative for the world when compared to the humanist who loves his grandchildren in the context of his humanism? It sounds like that is the argument being made.
Made me think more about it there, Bruce!
I am against any teachings about the nature of the Universe, including humans, that is not supported by science in some way. I do not think children at an impressionable age should be exposed to such. That all children should have moral and ethical instruction, by example pre-school and then through formal education, I am 100% in favour of. Barring genetic, injury or disease problems all parents get the children they educate, pre-school, by their own behaviour. I have seen far too many bad examples in my life of lazy and even cruel parenting - but unless obvious physical or psychological indicators are noticed not a lot can be done about that. Thus it is up to others to try to correct things, often with too little in terms of suitable teachers, time and funding.
Any teaching that involves, say, the promise of "hellfire" for "touching oneself" should earn a long prison sentence in my book. Be interesting, but very time consuming I would guess, to research the relationships between religion, atheism and neurosis in childhood and adulthood. Using sources as objective as possible of course.
Thus, as expressed before, I have a degree of respect for the moral ethos, if not the religious intent, of the local church school. There is no "hellfire and damnation" there and as much comparative religion (understanding others) as strictly Christian. And little overt religious symbolism. That it "graduates" atheists, and even petty criminals, has been demonstrated over the 27 years I have lived here. So no system is perfect against human nature!
But then, how many seemingly deeply religious criminals, committing from petty theft/fraud through paedophilia to plutocratic power-pastors have been arrested since the law stopped kowtowing to the churches?
With local authorities no longer being able to refuse churches planning permission it looks like they are in the ascendency again in America.
Like Tank, you make a lot of assumptions about my particular faith. What churches in America do has nothing to do with the quality of love I have for my grandchildren (which is what my post is about). If you don't want to step outside the bounds of humanism for your world view, I have no problem with that. But you have not made the case that the love or deeds that a Christian has or does is of less value than that of a humanist.
Sorry, Bruce, that was not intended as a personal attack. In any group there are going to be a spectrum, a range of strengths of belief. I get as annoyed with humanists who refuse to let their kids explore rreigion for themselves as I do with theists who keep their kids on a short leash.
Without personal knowledge or experience of individuals one can only discuss generalities. That you love your grandkids I have no doubt, everything you have written here indicates a generous and sensitive person. But if you were to, say, insist they accept Creationism then I would be concerned for those kids future understanding of the world. (Not saying you would do such a thing.) Using your faith to give them moral and ethical "tools" to navigate a clear course through life is a real bonus for them
Sorry if I have put anything in a way that offends. As I have said several times before I "judge" a person more by their actions than their beliefs.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 16, 2018, 05:28:27 PM
.. Remember, you haven't proven that "no god" is a fact. ...
The onus to prove that gods exist and are a fact is on theists. You know that, yet you deny responsibility for providing that proof. The very fact that you profess to be a Christian means you live in a world based on myth and delusion. You once said that maybe theists are just 'mistaken'. Well they are very much mistaken and live in a world of self conceit and fantasy. And the fact that an intelligent adult like you can still kneel to unproven myths and legends disappoints me greatly. If you don't like the answer to the question you asked that is not my fault is it? You appear to have a very superficial understanding of the reality that faith is meaningless to me. In fact it's a poison running deep through the history of humanity. I have no doubt whatsoever that you love your children and grandchildren, but if you teach them that they are loved by something you can't prove all you are doing is perpetuating the mythology you believe and have no evidence to support. You might as well be a Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Jainist or follow any one of the thousands of myths that hide behind the fallacy of special pleading.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 16, 2018, 06:44:22 AM
If I, as a Christian, love my grandchildren and act accordingly, in the context of my faith, is that a net negative for the world when compared to the humanist who loves his grandchildren in the context of his humanism? It sounds like that is the argument being made.
I'm not sure I understand this debate at all, but I would say that, all things being equal, an act that benefits others has the same value no matter who does it or why. The problem comes in with things very rarely being equal, and with how they are unequal.
For instance, you have two groups handing out bags of food, water and sundries to homeless people. One group gives them the supplies without asking for anything in return, the other group requires each homeless person to declare that they "accept Jesus" before they receive a bag of supplies (which is what one church in my city does).
Both groups benefited homeless people, and those who dealt with the "accept Jesus" first group only had to go thru a religious ritual that was functionally meaningless. But do these acts still have the same value? For me, I'd have to say no. Tho there isn't much difference between them, I think the group who held the supplies hostage briefly has tainted their action.
As far as you personally in the love of your grandchildren, I would accept that it's equal in value to a humanist's love for his grandchildren, based on what I've learned about you in this forum. Tho I'm still curious about what "in the context of your faith" involves. I'd bet a lot of money that you wouldn't beat a child for disrespecting you as a way of showing your love of your god, tho there are plenty of Xtians who would and in my opinion that would certainly reduce the value of their love.
As for not proving that there is no god, 1) most of us don't make that claim, and 2) proving a negative is a logical impossibility so don't even bother asking for it.
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2018, 06:17:32 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 16, 2018, 05:28:27 PM
.. Remember, you haven't proven that "no god" is a fact. ...
The onus to prove that gods exist and are a fact is on theists. You know that, yet you deny responsibility for providing that proof. The very fact that you profess to be a Christian means you live in a world based on myth and delusion. You once said that maybe theists are just 'mistaken'. Well they are very much mistaken and live in a world of self conceit and fantasy. And the fact that an intelligent adult like you can still kneel to unproven myths and legends disappoints me greatly. If you don't like the answer to the question you asked that is not my fault is it? You appear to have a very superficial understanding of the reality that faith is meaningless to me. In fact it's a poison running deep through the history of humanity. I have no doubt whatsoever that you love your children and grandchildren, but if you teach them that they are loved by something you can't prove all you are doing is perpetuating the mythology you believe and have no evidence to support. You might as well be a Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Jainist or follow any one of the thousands of myths that hide behind the fallacy of special pleading.
I'm not trying to prove anything, Tank. I have no onus, no burden of proof. You are the one who seems to have taken the offensive, so the burden is on you. To suggest that my love for my grandchildren, because I am a believer, is in any way inferior to yours, is offensive and abhorrent in the extreme. But I'm not inclined to pursue this further, so I will bow out of this conversation.
Quote from: Sandra Craft on June 16, 2018, 09:36:52 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 16, 2018, 06:44:22 AM
If I, as a Christian, love my grandchildren and act accordingly, in the context of my faith, is that a net negative for the world when compared to the humanist who loves his grandchildren in the context of his humanism? It sounds like that is the argument being made.
I'm not sure I understand this debate at all, but I would say that, all things being equal, an act that benefits others has the same value no matter who does it or why. The problem comes in with things very rarely being equal, and with how they are unequal.
For instance, you have two groups handing out bags of food, water and sundries to homeless people. One group gives them the supplies without asking for anything in return, the other group requires each homeless person to declare that they "accept Jesus" before they receive a bag of supplies (which is what one church in my city does).
Both groups benefited homeless people, and those who dealt with the "accept Jesus" first group only had to go thru a religious ritual that was functionally meaningless. But do these acts still have the same value? For me, I'd have to say no. Tho there isn't much difference between them, I think the group who held the supplies hostage briefly has tainted their action.
As far as you personally in the love of your grandchildren, I would accept that it's equal in value to a humanist's love for his grandchildren, based on what I've learned about you in this forum. Tho I'm still curious about what "in the context of your faith" involves. I'd bet a lot of money that you wouldn't beat a child for disrespecting you as a way of showing your love of your god, tho there are plenty of Xtians who would and in my opinion that would certainly reduce the value of their love.
As for not proving that there is no god, 1) most of us don't make that claim, and 2) proving a negative is a logical impossibility so don't even bother asking for it.
"In the context of my Christian faith" simply means that I believe that my grandchildren have a purpose, are here for a reason, and are guided by a loving God. I don't beat my grandchildren, although I find it curious that I would find it necessary to say that.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 17, 2018, 03:42:25 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2018, 06:17:32 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 16, 2018, 05:28:27 PM
.. Remember, you haven't proven that "no god" is a fact. ...
The onus to prove that gods exist and are a fact is on theists. You know that, yet you deny responsibility for providing that proof. The very fact that you profess to be a Christian means you live in a world based on myth and delusion. You once said that maybe theists are just 'mistaken'. Well they are very much mistaken and live in a world of self conceit and fantasy. And the fact that an intelligent adult like you can still kneel to unproven myths and legends disappoints me greatly. If you don't like the answer to the question you asked that is not my fault is it? You appear to have a very superficial understanding of the reality that faith is meaningless to me. In fact it's a poison running deep through the history of humanity. I have no doubt whatsoever that you love your children and grandchildren, but if you teach them that they are loved by something you can't prove all you are doing is perpetuating the mythology you believe and have no evidence to support. You might as well be a Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Jainist or follow any one of the thousands of myths that hide behind the fallacy of special pleading.
I'm not trying to prove anything, Tank.
That is quite true. You expect others to believe what you believe on the basis of millennia old mythology and no evidence. Not going to happen.
Quote
I have no onus, no burden of proof.
Oh yes you do Bruce. The null condition is that nothing exists. Gradually humanity has amassed evidence that some things do exist. Theists posit that gods exist. The burden of proof lies with the people making the claim.
Quote
You are the one who seems to have taken the offensive, so the burden is on you.
See above.
QuoteTo suggest that my love for my grandchildren, because I am a believer, is in any way inferior to yours, is offensive and abhorrent in the extreme.
If I had said that you would be quite right. I specifically commented that the love you and I hold for our families is unquestionable and equal. It's propagation of irrational belief by theists that is the issue.
Quote
But I'm not inclined to pursue this further, so I will bow out of this conversation.
This is of course always your choice.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 17, 2018, 03:46:49 AM
Quote from: Sandra Craft on June 16, 2018, 09:36:52 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 16, 2018, 06:44:22 AM
If I, as a Christian, love my grandchildren and act accordingly, in the context of my faith, is that a net negative for the world when compared to the humanist who loves his grandchildren in the context of his humanism? It sounds like that is the argument being made.
I'm not sure I understand this debate at all, but I would say that, all things being equal, an act that benefits others has the same value no matter who does it or why. The problem comes in with things very rarely being equal, and with how they are unequal.
For instance, you have two groups handing out bags of food, water and sundries to homeless people. One group gives them the supplies without asking for anything in return, the other group requires each homeless person to declare that they "accept Jesus" before they receive a bag of supplies (which is what one church in my city does).
Both groups benefited homeless people, and those who dealt with the "accept Jesus" first group only had to go thru a religious ritual that was functionally meaningless. But do these acts still have the same value? For me, I'd have to say no. Tho there isn't much difference between them, I think the group who held the supplies hostage briefly has tainted their action.
As far as you personally in the love of your grandchildren, I would accept that it's equal in value to a humanist's love for his grandchildren, based on what I've learned about you in this forum. Tho I'm still curious about what "in the context of your faith" involves. I'd bet a lot of money that you wouldn't beat a child for disrespecting you as a way of showing your love of your god, tho there are plenty of Xtians who would and in my opinion that would certainly reduce the value of their love.
As for not proving that there is no god, 1) most of us don't make that claim, and 2) proving a negative is a logical impossibility so don't even bother asking for it.
"In the context of my Christian faith" simply means that I believe that my grandchildren have a purpose, are here for a reason, and are guided by a loving God. I don't beat my grandchildren, although I find it curious that I would find it necessary to say that.
So the inference being that non-Christian humans have no purpose or reason to exist. Look in the mirror Bruce, can you see that plank in your eye?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 17, 2018, 03:46:49 AM
"In the context of my Christian faith" simply means that I believe that my grandchildren have a purpose, are here for a reason, and are guided by a loving God. I don't beat my grandchildren, although I find it curious that I would find it necessary to say that.
So do I, since I thought it was clear I didn't think you did.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 17, 2018, 03:46:49 AM
"In the context of my Christian faith" simply means that I believe that my grandchildren have a purpose, are here for a reason, and are guided by a loving God. I don't beat my grandchildren, although I find it curious that I would find it necessary to say that.
In the context of my humanist beliefs I consider that all people are here because that is the way reptoduction works and they all deserve to be raised and educated in a manner that will help them find a purpose that benefits humankind and or the world we live on.
Your last sentence was not necessary. Looks like a minor case of "getting your defence in first" in case of attack. :grin:
I think you're one of the good guys, Bruce.
Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.
So the inference being that non-Christian humans have no purpose or reason to exist. Look in the mirror Bruce, can you see that plank in your eye?
The inference being, actually, that an atheistic view robs humanity of any ultimate purpose. You can fill your life with activity and call it purpose, but it is only a bandaid on the gaping wound.
Spawned by chance in an indifferent universe, brought to our current state by brutal and uncaring natural selection, our end oblivion and a small pile of compost. That is what atheism tells us we are, as a race.
We can go out and do things, even things we think of as great or worthy or noble. but the end of all is death. Even the universe is is slowly being ground down by entropy as per the second Law of Thermodynamics.
A Man Said to the Universe
BY STEPHEN CRANE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 02:03:55 PM
So the inference being that non-Christian humans have no purpose or reason to exist. Look in the mirror Bruce, can you see that plank in your eye?
The inference being, actually, that an atheistic view robs humanity of any ultimate purpose. You can fill your life with activity and call it purpose, but it is only a bandaid on the gaping wound.
Spawned by chance in an indifferent universe, brought to our current state by brutal and uncaring natural selection, our end oblivion and a small pile of compost. That is what atheism tells us we are, as a race.
We can go out and do things, even things we think of as great or worthy or noble. but the end of all is death. Even the universe is is slowly being ground down by entropy as per the second Law of Thermodynamics.
A Man Said to the Universe
BY STEPHEN CRANE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Ignoring the fact that you missed quoting and it looks like you agree with Tank . . .
The bits I have emboldened are exacty right in my belief. Excepting the fact that our brains developed sufficiently to invent and encompass such concepts as species superiority it is a kind of hubris for mankind to consider, in the "view" of the uncaring Universe, he is any better than the other apes, or even a mouse. Or lesser creature - we just provide a bit more fertiliser for future generation - OK, less fertilser than an elephant does.
Added: I suppose you might consider generating knowledge as a kind of transgenerational mind fertiliser!
Our purpose? To provide a better world for forthcoming generations which is a task, so far, we singularly fail in en masse regardless of belief or lack thereof. And despite religion being a major controlling authority for most of mankind's written history. Death and destruction ruled then and now and your "God" has not done a lot about it.
Yes, entropy cometh. One day every particle in the Universe will be the same temperature as every other, all radioactive elements will have reduced to their first stable isotopes and there will be no energy gradients to drive reactions. Be a long time coming though, we will have died off long before that.
And arguing about an "afterlife" is utterly futile if one person totally believes in it and another thinks it is merely hopeful rubbish with no foundation in reality.
Quote from: Dave on June 17, 2018, 02:35:36 PM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 02:03:55 PM
So the inference being that non-Christian humans have no purpose or reason to exist. Look in the mirror Bruce, can you see that plank in your eye?
The inference being, actually, that an atheistic view robs humanity of any ultimate purpose. You can fill your life with activity and call it purpose, but it is only a bandaid on the gaping wound.
Spawned by chance in an indifferent universe, brought to our current state by brutal and uncaring natural selection, our end oblivion and a small pile of compost. That is what atheism tells us we are, as a race.
We can go out and do things, even things we think of as great or worthy or noble. but the end of all is death. Even the universe is is slowly being ground down by entropy as per the second Law of Thermodynamics.
A Man Said to the Universe
BY STEPHEN CRANE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Ignoring the fact that you missed quoting and it looks like you agree with Tank . . .
Ah yes, I am not entirely sure how to do that in tapatalk without quoting the entire post or string of posts. Captain Thunder thumbs, I am not.
"Our purpose? To provide a better world for forthcoming generations..."
Why? Who makes that our purpose? Does it come from some external source (which would be a deity) or does it come from within (in which case it is arbitrary)?
This still does not answer the question of purpose. It is a philosophical and psychological band aid.
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 02:50:44 PM
Quote from: Dave on June 17, 2018, 02:35:36 PM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 02:03:55 PM
So the inference being that non-Christian humans have no purpose or reason to exist. Look in the mirror Bruce, can you see that plank in your eye?
The inference being, actually, that an atheistic view robs humanity of any ultimate purpose. You can fill your life with activity and call it purpose, but it is only a bandaid on the gaping wound.
Spawned by chance in an indifferent universe, brought to our current state by brutal and uncaring natural selection, our end oblivion and a small pile of compost. That is what atheism tells us we are, as a race.
We can go out and do things, even things we think of as great or worthy or noble. but the end of all is death. Even the universe is is slowly being ground down by entropy as per the second Law of Thermodynamics.
A Man Said to the Universe
BY STEPHEN CRANE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
]
Ignoring the fact that you missed quoting and it looks like you agree with Tank . . .
Ah yes, I am not entirely sure how to do that in tapatalk without quoting the entire post or string of posts. Captain Thunder thumbs, I am not.
"Our purpose? To provide a better world for forthcoming generations..."
Why? Who makes that our purpose? Does it come from some external source (which would be a deity) or does it come from within (in which case it is arbitrary)?
This still does not answer the question of purpose. It is a philosophical and psychological band aid.
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
What is the purpose of a bee? To make more bees and provide for the young so they can make even more bees. Ditto mouse, porpoise, elephant, ape etc, etc. Some evidence recently that suggests even trees support their seedlings and younger siblings. Why else does life continue to exist? It is the nature of "Nature".
That we evolutionarily developed language and spare brain capacity (over and above that needed to survive, reproduce successfully and so ensure species survival) is chance in my belief, there is a lot of evidence to support our evolution from "lesser" hominids. Otherwise, as said before, we have no purpose better than the other animals, we are egotistical as a species and can invent concepts, such as gods and having domain over the lesser animals, that try to explain things when we had no real knowledge of their basis and give us extra importance.
I do not need a bandaid (except a new one on my scraped knee after my shower) to support these ideas, I simply accept them as the, currently, most viable explanation. Occam's Razor applies. If anything "God" is the bandaid chosen to allow people not to fear their ultimate and utter physical and psychical death.
Provide me with concrete proof otherwise, not faith-belief, and I might consider joining you! Still no Pascal's Wager for me yet though . . .
At 73 with a serious heart condition I know that death can come at any moment, I would prefer that moment to be a long way in the future but do not fear the moment - even believing that utter extinction will follow. Just want to make sure my estate provides for those I care a bit about. And some charities since I have no family.
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 02:03:55 PM
So the inference being that non-Christian humans have no purpose or reason to exist. Look in the mirror Bruce, can you see that plank in your eye?
The inference being, actually, that an atheistic view robs humanity of any ultimate purpose. You can fill your life with activity and call it purpose, but it is only a bandaid on the gaping wound.
Spawned by chance in an indifferent universe, brought to our current state by brutal and uncaring natural selection, our end oblivion and a small pile of compost. That is what atheism tells us we are, as a race.
We can go out and do things, even things we think of as great or worthy or noble. but the end of all is death. Even the universe is is slowly being ground down by entropy as per the second Law of Thermodynamics.
A Man Said to the Universe
BY STEPHEN CRANE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
So you just have to learn to define your purpose in other ways. I think it's fascinating what science tells us. More so than any religious book that I've read. But at the same time, I do want to teach people what I know personally. That's not a religion. That's my purpose that I set out to have for the world. The thing about the NPR article helped me understand that there is something valuable and unique about me that most people in the United States don't have but I can still bring it to the table and help society be more proud and confident and productive in their selves.
Also the things I read in a the personal trainer books that I am studying for to take the certification exam have more purpose then just memorizing to get a certificate. It helps me creatively build more programs that will better suit people with different needs and wants. And I get that all from just reading one chapter.
So you can say we were spawned by an indifferent universe and I would agree, but I also think it's fascinating that we made it out of that and still continue to thrive and be live our lives daily without issue. And yeah sure you can fear death and that's the end of everything, for you that is. But life goes on after you die, hopefully. And the best way to tackle any issue is with confidence. So before you die, make sure you leave your mark on the world, and make it a positive mark for the rest of society and the planet. Because this is the only planet we have and we have to take care of it. The universe may die and fizzle out one day, and possibly us with it, but at least we all died together. And we have the possibility of so many things in the future that we could hypothetically take care of our universe as we should do with our planet earth right now to preserve it and create life and energy without having to rely on the universe to supply it for us. Because the biggest factor in the universe's death, is that it's expansion will create a gap too large between things to create a reaction, and therefore energy. So we have the possibility, and that's why it's so fascinating.
And before anyone goes saying it's a belief system. It's not because things can change and flow. And nothing is for certain when it comes to science. Things and ideas can change or be incorrect all together and thrown out the window. It's not a static ambiguous text that cannot be challenged or questioned and all humans have to subscribe to it or face eternal suffering threats from your pastor. I don't think I would want to live forever. There are plenty of people in the USA who don't even want to live now and make it a point to end their suffering. And I'm sure a lot of people do not want that. Both atheists and christians alike. We just have different ways going about it. And I think telling people to "accept Jesus" to get help or they will let you continue to suffer, is in my mind, abuse of power. If you gave that person the help they needed and kept religion out of it, they would still get help and probably end up a lot better. Because then they don't have anything to fear. They don't have to try to conform to people's standards under the guise of God to receive help. That's forcing someone to submit to you and your will and believe what you believe. So it's likely not authentic belief and like I said before, that's something that only happens under a dictatorship.
But there are a lot of things very caring people see that is wrong with society like the argumentative angry verbally and emotionally abusive people who have banded together. And I tell those people, if that's what is on their mind, that's what they should be trying to fix. That's the improvement they should try make and the mark they should try to leave on society and the world. But if you keep trying to show them the bad things, all they will believe is the bad things, and so will you. And that's no good for anybody. That's bad for all of those involved self esteem and the best thing for them them to do in that situation is to leave. Not leave their calling. But leave you alone. Because if that's what your goal is, is to show people evil and bad things and stuff they do, then they shouldn't be involved with you. And they probably won't want to be anyway.
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 02:03:55 PM
So the inference being that non-Christian humans have no purpose or reason to exist. Look in the mirror Bruce, can you see that plank in your eye?
The inference being, actually, that an atheistic view robs humanity of any ultimate purpose. You can fill your life with activity and call it purpose, but it is only a bandaid on the gaping wound.
Spawned by chance in an indifferent universe, brought to our current state by brutal and uncaring natural selection, our end oblivion and a small pile of compost. That is what atheism tells us we are, as a race.
We can go out and do things, even things we think of as great or worthy or noble. but the end of all is death. Even the universe is is slowly being ground down by entropy as per the second Law of Thermodynamics.
A Man Said to the Universe
BY STEPHEN CRANE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
There is no plank in my eye. I don't judge humanists or suggest that they can't find meaning or purpose. I might be wrong about my beliefs. My issue is with the suggestion that a theist's act of love or kindness automatically ranks lower on the value scale. That's bullshit and Tank knows it. He's being obstinate, not rational.
Quote from: Sandra Craft on June 17, 2018, 10:52:22 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 17, 2018, 03:46:49 AM
"In the context of my Christian faith" simply means that I believe that my grandchildren have a purpose, are here for a reason, and are guided by a loving God. I don't beat my grandchildren, although I find it curious that I would find it necessary to say that.
So do I, since I thought it was clear I didn't think you did.
Perhaps my statement was superfluous.
Quote from: Tank on June 17, 2018, 06:17:13 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 17, 2018, 03:46:49 AM
Quote from: Sandra Craft on June 16, 2018, 09:36:52 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 16, 2018, 06:44:22 AM
If I, as a Christian, love my grandchildren and act accordingly, in the context of my faith, is that a net negative for the world when compared to the humanist who loves his grandchildren in the context of his humanism? It sounds like that is the argument being made.
I'm not sure I understand this debate at all, but I would say that, all things being equal, an act that benefits others has the same value no matter who does it or why. The problem comes in with things very rarely being equal, and with how they are unequal.
For instance, you have two groups handing out bags of food, water and sundries to homeless people. One group gives them the supplies without asking for anything in return, the other group requires each homeless person to declare that they "accept Jesus" before they receive a bag of supplies (which is what one church in my city does).
Both groups benefited homeless people, and those who dealt with the "accept Jesus" first group only had to go thru a religious ritual that was functionally meaningless. But do these acts still have the same value? For me, I'd have to say no. Tho there isn't much difference between them, I think the group who held the supplies hostage briefly has tainted their action.
As far as you personally in the love of your grandchildren, I would accept that it's equal in value to a humanist's love for his grandchildren, based on what I've learned about you in this forum. Tho I'm still curious about what "in the context of your faith" involves. I'd bet a lot of money that you wouldn't beat a child for disrespecting you as a way of showing your love of your god, tho there are plenty of Xtians who would and in my opinion that would certainly reduce the value of their love.
As for not proving that there is no god, 1) most of us don't make that claim, and 2) proving a negative is a logical impossibility so don't even bother asking for it.
"In the context of my Christian faith" simply means that I believe that my grandchildren have a purpose, are here for a reason, and are guided by a loving God. I don't beat my grandchildren, although I find it curious that I would find it necessary to say that.
So the inference being that non-Christian humans have no purpose or reason to exist. Look in the mirror Bruce, can you see that plank in your eye?
No, I'm simply telling you what my faith means to me. I have nothing to say about your world view - I'm only describing mine.
One only carries a burden of proof when one is attempting to prove something. If one is simply explaining one's position and not trying to convince, there is no burden of proof.
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 02:03:55 PMThe inference being, actually, that an atheistic view robs humanity of any ultimate purpose.
Since there is no definitive support for the existence of an ultimate purpose for humanity that exists outside the minds of people, it's completely reasonable to doubt that there is any such thing. If an objectively existing ultimate purpose is illusory, all that has been lost is the spurious comfort provided by the illusion. Note as well that there are a variety of supposed ultimate purposes available to choose from. None of them can support a claim to be the actual ultimate purpose while all others are false.
It's readily apparent; people promote the idea of an ultimate purpose for humanity that objectively exists, and different people promote different ultimate purposes. This tells us that people invent ultimate purposes for humanity, since not all of them can be the one true ultimate purpose. Knowing that at best all but one of the choices on offer
must be false, and given the tendency for this sort of invention that our species displays, one is left to conclude that it's rather likely that all "ultimate purposes" are inventions.
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 02:03:55 PMYou can fill your life with activity and call it purpose, but it is only a bandaid on the gaping wound.
Or perhaps this is just an example of religious Munchausen syndrome by proxy. I don't feel any gaping wound, and you telling people that I have one doesn't conjure it into existence.
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 02:03:55 PMSpawned by chance in an indifferent universe, brought to our current state by brutal and uncaring natural selection, our end oblivion and a small pile of compost. That is what atheism tells us we are, as a race.
Atheism doesn't tell us any such thing. You're using negative terminology to describe your view of a godless existence but I needn't subscribe to it. It's not hard to put forth an alternate way of describing a godless existence without the negativity.
Humanity is a manifestation of the universe that is capable of an ever-expanding knowledge and understanding of the universe--the universe becoming conscious of itself, if you will. The universe is amazing, and our ability to learn about the universe is also amazing. Like all things in the universe, we exist on a temporary basis but to paraphrase Mark Twain, for many billions of years we didn't exist and none of us suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 02:03:55 PMWe can go out and do things, even things we think of as great or worthy or noble. but the end of all is death. Even the universe is is slowly being ground down by entropy as per the second Law of Thermodynamics.
A Man Said to the Universe
BY STEPHEN CRANE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
I don't see anything wrong with that, nor do I find it even mildly discouraging.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 17, 2018, 07:44:15 PM
One only carries a burden of proof when one is attempting to prove something. If one is simply explaining one's position and not trying to convince, there is no burden of proof.
So, the difference being:
"I believe in God and the life everlasting."
Versus
"God exists and the righteous will live forever."
Yup,the first is a given right. Believe in whatever you like!
The second, if a public claim, is open to demands to justify, substantiate or prove it to the audience's satisfaction. If made in a church or other private setting ain't nothing to do with anyone else.
Note: rant deleted as being irrelevant to rest of post.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 17, 2018, 07:44:15 PM
One only carries a burden of proof when one is attempting to prove something. If one is simply explaining one's position and not trying to convince, there is no burden of proof.
So, the difference being:
"I believe in God and the life everlasting."
Versus
"God exists and the righteous will live forever."
Yup,the first is a given right. Believe in whatever you like!
The second, if a public claim, is open to demands to justify, substantiate or prove it to the audience's satisfaction. If made in a church or other private setting ain't nothing to do with anyone else.
But, teaching kids such things at an impressionable age, and especially using such to ransome their good behaviour, I would love to see made illegal.
Note: rant deleted as being irrelevant to rest of post.
Oops, I hit quote instead of modufy, :duh: !
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 02:03:55 PM
The inference being, actually, that an atheistic view robs humanity of any ultimate purpose. You can fill your life with activity and call it purpose, but it is only a bandaid on the gaping wound.
There is no gaping wound caused by my atheism. Oddly enough, the gaping wound that I did have only started to heal once I became an atheist. I do not need some grand "ultimate purpose" force fed to me by some demented father figure.
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 02:03:55 PM
The inference being, actually, that an atheistic view robs humanity of any ultimate purpose. You can fill your life with activity and call it purpose, but it is only a bandaid on the gaping wound.
Not sure whether I have used the analogy here but I have often used "the god shaped hole" to desctibe what might be a genetic need for a deity of some variety, and the Abrahamic god is only one of many, probably thousands, mankind has "'employed" in its entire history. Not sure about the "God gene" hypothesis (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene). I would love to find out if I have that gene because I have never felt that void within my psyche. Perhaps I blocked it up with curiosity before the vicars and teachers got a look in?
I was certainly always in bad odour for questioning the lessons and writings from the very start. And that was not learnt ftom my parents, they did not give a damn what I thought or did providing I did not annoy them in any way.
I may have reiterated a bit from previous posts there, pardon me if I did, put it down to my dotage and my being in post-bath + vino stage latish at night.
It's fine if you want to accept having no ultimate purpose. But then don't tell me you believe in hope. Hope is for things with a future. What good are temporary hopes (the new car, the cure for cancer, the bowl of ice cream when you get home) if overshadowing it all is death and oblivion?
And don't tell me you believe in moral excellence. Morals either come from something higher than man, or they are arbitrary. They are arbitrary even in the normative behavior indicated in the original humanist statement of values in this thread, as normative behavior is cultural. As has been noted, in some cultures people love their neighbors, in others they eat them. So moral excellence really depends on the individual perspective.
I am not arguing your right to atheism. I am challenging the attempts to mask or minimize its negative philosophical consequences.
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 10:35:31 PM
It's fine if you want to accept having no ultimate purpose. But then don't tell me you believe in hope. Hope is for things with a future. What good are temporary hopes (the new car, the cure for cancer, the bowl of ice cream when you get home) if overshadowing it all is death and oblivion?
You can have hope for a future that you're not going to be part of. That's a commonplace and ordinary impulse, and no different than being concerned for people here and now that you'll never meet. I've noticed theists, at least the Xtian ones I'm familiar with, have a horror of death, as if not being immortal is some kind of personal affront or insult. Not everyone feels that way. Just because I or ultimately the universe won't last forever doesn't make what there is unimportant or valueless.
QuoteAnd don't tell me you believe in moral excellence. Morals either come from something higher than man, or they are arbitrary. They are arbitrary even in the normative behavior indicated in the original humanist statement of values in this thread, as normative behavior is cultural. As has been noted, in some cultures people love their neighbors, in others they eat them. So moral excellence really depends on the individual perspective.
Of course it's arbitrary, and of course there are going to be differences of opinion about it. That doesn't rule out striving for moral excellence, it just makes it harder because it eliminates the idea of a puppet master and takes power away from those using that idea to play puppeteer in its name. Things are always harder when nobody is pulling the strings -- better, but harder.
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 10:35:31 PM
It's fine if you want to accept having no ultimate purpose. But then don't tell me you believe in hope. Hope is for things with a future. What good are temporary hopes (the new car, the cure for cancer, the bowl of ice cream when you get home) if overshadowing it all is death and oblivion?
And don't tell me you believe in moral excellence. Morals either come from something higher than man, or they are arbitrary. They are arbitrary even in the normative behavior indicated in the original humanist statement of values in this thread, as normative behavior is cultural. As has been noted, in some cultures people love their neighbors, in others they eat them. So moral excellence really depends on the individual perspective.
I am not arguing your right to atheism. I am challenging the attempts to mask or minimize its negative philosophical consequences.
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
You do not seem to get it about astheists 100%, Dfr.
* Why do I need an "ultimate pupose", I feel that I have mundane purpose, can purposely support my neighbour in his disability (though he is,19 years my junior), random people met who are in minor need, charities etc. Good enough for me!
* I have hopes by the bucketfull, but all within the scope of this world. I also hope, that by dint of medical science and practice, my own attempts to do sensible things and the seeming natural resilience of my body and psyche that I live long enough to do more "good deeds" and that my estate benefits those left when I finally peg it. My great "'fear" is that I will become so disabled that the greater part of my capital is consumed in paying for my final care and not benefitting others.
* Human morality spans from one end of the spectrum to another. Good and bad morals exist in every belief and faith group, as has been reiterated several times in this discussion - please do not regurgitate stuff already posed and answered. Terrible debating tactic that indicates you are running out of arguments - like most theists. What's worse is you have us doing it - oh for an AI discussion analysis app that detects and flags such reiterations!
* Getting too late for me:
QuoteI am challenging the attempts to mask or minimize its negative philosophical consequences.
Oh, dear, I may be
asking you to reiterate here - please expand on these "negative philosophical consequences" so that we might answer with the mind dumbing/limiting consequences of religious belief. I will suggest that our psychology, which affects us directly every day, is more in danger from restriction than philosophy, which Joe Public only very rarely considers, is from freedom.
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 10:35:31 PMI am not arguing your right to atheism. I am challenging the attempts to mask or minimize its negative philosophical consequences.
You're applying your standards to arrive at your judgement that atheism results in "negative philosophical consequences." That's fine, but you cannot dictate the standards by which the whole world evaluates "philosophical consequences."
"Ultimate purpose" is unnecessary for hope, and death being a fact of life doesn't mean that hope is meaningless in the absence of a god, no matter how fervently you happen to believe that.
"Arbitrary" ≠ "Meaningless"
Can you address the fact that there are multiple versions of morality that lay claim to being universal, to having originated from a god or gods? It certainly looks like these various competing claims are evidence supporting the idea that none of them are what they present themselves as. That many of them coincide is attributable to the fact that our species evolved to be intelligent and social. There is no need for any supernatural contribution to explain how human societies arrive at moral values and arrange themselves.
Yes, you were right with your ref, Recusant - standard theist tactics are to throw several points at once, hoping to confuse - then reiterate those pionts in different orders over and over, hoping to trip the other up in inconsistencies. Do they all read the same instruction book - spart from their holy book that is? No, probably part of human nature and, if the "prosecution" side, we probably do the same. Even kids will try several iterations to get what they want if denied at first - the repeated, "But, dad, what if . . ." pattern.
[Since this cough does not abate until after 1am might as well keep my brain going hoping for sleep's sweet embrace at some time.]
[Hmm, maybe time for another debate on the positive correlation between national religiosity and violence. Of course, correlation does not imply causation but . . .]
Quote from: Dave on June 17, 2018, 11:39:21 PM
Yes, you were right with your ref, Recusant - standard theist tactics are to throw several points at once, hop8ng to confuse - then reiterate those pionts in different orders over and over, hoping to trip the other up in inconsistencies. Do they all read the same instruction book - spart from their holy book that is? No, probably part of human nature and, if the "prosecution" side, we probably do the same. Even kids will try several iterations to get what they want if denied at first - the repeated, "But, dad, what if . . ." pattern.
Ah, well it was
Tank that referred to the Gish gallop. I don't think that is what
drfreemlizard is doing here. He's keeping his arguments pretty well-organized and is sticking to a limited number of points. The Gish gallop is throwing up a very large number of points, references (often dishonestly sourced), and arguments in a fairly chaotic manner with the possibly unintentional result that the interlocutor has difficulty dealing with the mess in any comprehensive way.
Bombardment with information is a personality flaw associated with the type 7 personality from the enneagram personality types. Usually occurs when the person is under stress. This personality type is usually high energy and enthusiastic but with significant stress becomes impulsive.
https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/type-7
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 10:35:31 PM
It's fine if you want to accept having no ultimate purpose. But then don't tell me you believe in hope. Hope is for things with a future. What good are temporary hopes (the new car, the cure for cancer, the bowl of ice cream when you get home) if overshadowing it all is death and oblivion?
Why is it so important to you that atheists have some overarching "ultimate purpose" that has been handed to them on a platter? My life is perfectly fine without it - and so are the lives of most other atheists. We have hope, purpose, love, and yes, even joy in our lives without it. We do not have need of some deity who tells us, "Love me or else."
I will have hope up until I draw my last breath, despite the fact that all is beyond that are death and oblivion. Knowing that I will someday die, knowing that my cats, my niece, my nephews, my friends, will all someday die does not kill hope. Knowing that there is only a 40% chance that my husband will be alive this time next year does not kill hope. It gives it a depth and a breath that was completely lacking from that "hope" offered by "pie-in-the-sky, everything-will-be-perfect-tomorrow" religion. What kind of hope can there be when you think that you will be handed all the solutions to your woes?
Quote from: Velma on June 18, 2018, 01:30:25 AM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 10:35:31 PM
It's fine if you want to accept having no ultimate purpose. But then don't tell me you believe in hope. Hope is for things with a future. What good are temporary hopes (the new car, the cure for cancer, the bowl of ice cream when you get home) if overshadowing it all is death and oblivion?
Why is it so important to you that atheists have some overarching "ultimate purpose" that has been handed to them on a platter? My life is perfectly fine without it - and so are the lives of most other atheists. We have hope, purpose, love, and yes, even joy in our lives without it. We do not have need of some deity who tells us, "Love me or else."
I will have hope up until I draw my last breath, despite the fact that all is beyond that are death and oblivion. Knowing that I will someday die, knowing that my cats, my niece, my nephews, my friends, will all someday die does not kill hope. Knowing that there is only a 40% chance that my husband will be alive this time next year does not kill hope. It gives it a depth and a breath that was completely lacking from that "hope" offered by "pie-in-the-sky, everything-will-be-perfect-tomorrow" religion. What kind of hope can there be when you think that you will be handed all the solutions to your woes?
At the same time, we don't have to have everything right now. And the quality of what we get is what's best gained rather than the cookie-cutter cheap life and beliefs that theists are given.
Quote from: Arturo on June 18, 2018, 01:51:17 AM
Quote from: Velma on June 18, 2018, 01:30:25 AM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 10:35:31 PM
It's fine if you want to accept having no ultimate purpose. But then don't tell me you believe in hope. Hope is for things with a future. What good are temporary hopes (the new car, the cure for cancer, the bowl of ice cream when you get home) if overshadowing it all is death and oblivion?
Why is it so important to you that atheists have some overarching "ultimate purpose" that has been handed to them on a platter? My life is perfectly fine without it - and so are the lives of most other atheists. We have hope, purpose, love, and yes, even joy in our lives without it. We do not have need of some deity who tells us, "Love me or else."
I will have hope up until I draw my last breath, despite the fact that all is beyond that are death and oblivion. Knowing that I will someday die, knowing that my cats, my niece, my nephews, my friends, will all someday die does not kill hope. Knowing that there is only a 40% chance that my husband will be alive this time next year does not kill hope. It gives it a depth and a breath that was completely lacking from that "hope" offered by "pie-in-the-sky, everything-will-be-perfect-tomorrow" religion. What kind of hope can there be when you think that you will be handed all the solutions to your woes?
At the same time, we don't have to have everything right now. And the quality of what we get is what's best gained rather than the cookie-cutter cheap life and beliefs that theists are given.
That too.
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 02:03:55 PM
...
A Man Said to the Universe
BY STEPHEN CRANE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
And this is why humans dreamed up gods. So they could cope in a hostile universe that gives not one shit about our existence. I accept reality and an existence in a hostile universe, you do not, you delude yourself that you matter. You do not. You are just a meat tube here to make more meat tubes and if you haven't made any new meat tubes you are essentially a failure. There is no reason for life to exist at all, none at all. Biology is just a by product of chemistry in the the right environment over sufficient time. And as far as we can tell based on recent findings while microbial life may exist in niche environments multicellular life may be vanishingly rare. None of which makes any difference to me whatsoever.
Quote from: Tank on June 18, 2018, 09:36:30 AM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 02:03:55 PM
...
A Man Said to the Universe
BY STEPHEN CRANE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
And this is why humans dreamed up gods. So they could cope in a hostile universe that gives not one shit about our existence. I accept reality and an existence in a hostile universe, you do not, you delude yourself that you matter. You do not. You are just a meat tube here to make more meat tubes and if you haven't made any new meat tubes you are essentially a failure. There is no reason for life to exist at all, none at all. Biology is just a by product of chemistry in the the right environment over sufficient time. And as far as we can tell based on recent findings while microbial life may exist in niche environments multicellular life may be vanishingly rare. None of which makes any difference to me whatsoever.
I always thought the Universe was totally indifferent, incapable of bias in any direction because it has no controlling mind.. "Hostile" surely needs opinion or bias and emotion to work?
I might also add "random" or "chance" before "product of chemistry" but that is a bit nit-picking.
Otherwise, yup..
Quote from: Dave on June 18, 2018, 10:26:35 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 18, 2018, 09:36:30 AM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 02:03:55 PM
...
A Man Said to the Universe
BY STEPHEN CRANE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
And this is why humans dreamed up gods. So they could cope in a hostile universe that gives not one shit about our existence. I accept reality and an existence in a hostile universe, you do not, you delude yourself that you matter. You do not. You are just a meat tube here to make more meat tubes and if you haven't made any new meat tubes you are essentially a failure. There is no reason for life to exist at all, none at all. Biology is just a by product of chemistry in the the right environment over sufficient time. And as far as we can tell based on recent findings while microbial life may exist in niche environments multicellular life may be vanishingly rare. None of which makes any difference to me whatsoever.
I always thought the Universe was totally indifferent, incapable of bias in any direction because it has no controlling mind.. "Hostile" surely needs opinion or bias and emotion to work?
I might also add "random" or "chance" before "product of chemistry" but that is a bit nit-picking.
Otherwise, yup..
Hostile in a storm at sea. You are right, ambivalent is probably a better term.
Quote from: Tank on June 18, 2018, 12:42:59 PM
Quote from: Dave on June 18, 2018, 10:26:35 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 18, 2018, 09:36:30 AM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 02:03:55 PM
...
A Man Said to the Universe
BY STEPHEN CRANE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
And this is why humans dreamed up gods. So they could cope in a hostile universe that gives not one shit about our existence. I accept reality and an existence in a hostile universe, you do not, you delude yourself that you matter. You do not. You are just a meat tube here to make more meat tubes and if you haven't made any new meat tubes you are essentially a failure. There is no reason for life to exist at all, none at all. Biology is just a by product of chemistry in the the right environment over sufficient time. And as far as we can tell based on recent findings while microbial life may exist in niche environments multicellular life may be vanishingly rare. None of which makes any difference to me whatsoever.
I always thought the Universe was totally indifferent, incapable of bias in any direction because it has no controlling mind.. "Hostile" surely needs opinion or bias and emotion to work?
I might also add "random" or "chance" before "product of chemistry" but that is a bit nit-picking.
Otherwise, yup..
Hostile in a storm at sea. You are right, ambivalent is probably a better term.
Getting pedantic here: "ambivalent" sort of means in two minds and unwilling or unable to decide between them, " in equal value", on a cusp. Even "indifferent" implies the counter abilities to be partial or anti.
Perhaps there is no word to describe this quality of the Universe from our perspective. It does not have a perspective (that we know of).
Added: personification can make things easier to understand ir accept yet, at the same time, act as a cop-out or even a barrier to further thought in a case like this. Seas are never hostile, they have no intent, they are just bloody rough at times!
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 16, 2018, 06:44:22 AM
If I, as a Christian, love my grandchildren and act accordingly, in the context of my faith, is that a net negative for the world when compared to the humanist who loves his grandchildren in the context of his humanism? It sounds like that is the argument being made.
You have to separate things. If both grandparents perform the same actions, then they are the same. The difference will be what exists beyond the actions. As implied by atheist and theist grandparents, there is an extra thing with the the theist. That doesn't mean that there is no extra thing with the atheist, just that in the given scenario there is not indication of any. If the theist grandparent did nothing extra at all, including never declaring themselves a theist, then there would be no difference in the grand children. But there would still be a net negative effect for the grandparent, in that what they are expecting, they will not be getting. It would be like putting bit of money into a furnace every month expecting to be able to use that money later. Investing in religions is like making a bad investment of money, time, and effort. All theists agree that it's a bad investment for every religion but the one they so happen to agree with, even though there is no reliable evidence for any of them.
Now in the real world, we know that theists do not just keep their religion to themselves, they find ways to introduce their religion in various ways. So if there is an effect from the grandparent that helps to convince the grandchildren to also waste their time, money, and/or effort by investing in religion as well, then that is a net negative. At least with all else being equal.
All you can do is hope what you are doing is right and that your actions will have good outcomes.
Quote from: Davin on June 18, 2018, 03:26:53 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 16, 2018, 06:44:22 AM
If I, as a Christian, love my grandchildren and act accordingly, in the context of my faith, is that a net negative for the world when compared to the humanist who loves his grandchildren in the context of his humanism? It sounds like that is the argument being made.
You have to separate things. If both grandparents perform the same actions, then they are the same. The difference will be what exists beyond the actions. As implied by atheist and theist grandparents, there is an extra thing with the the theist. That doesn't mean that there is no extra thing with the atheist, just that in the given scenario there is not indication of any. If the theist grandparent did nothing extra at all, including never declaring themselves a theist, then there would be no difference in the grand children. But there would still be a net negative effect for the grandparent, in that what they are expecting, they will not be getting. It would be like putting bit of money into a furnace every month expecting to be able to use that money later. Investing in religions is like making a bad investment of money, time, and effort. All theists agree that it's a bad investment for every religion but the one they so happen to agree with, even though there is no reliable evidence for any of them.
Now in the real world, we know that theists do not just keep their religion to themselves, they find ways to introduce their religion in various ways. So if there is an effect from the grandparent that helps to convince the grandchildren to also waste their time, money, and/or effort by investing in religion as well, then that is a net negative. At least with all else being equal.
Some interesting ideas in that, Davin.
Problem is both theists and atheists come in wide ranges of all kinds of things. Theists vary from "casual" liberals to strict, even raving, fundamentalists. Atheists, strictly, might range from the thoughtful, more or less moral type (such as us!) to the "I don't give a shit what the kid wants, put the TV on and give me a beer" brigade (I have met them.)
Humanists are very much in the thoughful, aspiring to be moral, section of the atheist range, their "belief set" keeps them there. Without that "belief set" they are not humanists, just atheists. Any humanist who forces their beliefs on their kids is not normally viewed kindly by other humanists, atheists may be prwised for saving their kids from any possibility of theist contamination.
Some atheists are humanists but do not like to be labeled as such :grin:
I am trying to visualise some Venn diagrams. In strict terms "All humanists are atheists," but another is needed to indicate that the true humanist must share qualities and values with theists. Perhaps, in reality, those qualities and values cannot be owned by any one group - human nature goes from extreme to exreme but things like compassion, morality etc are still in there to be shared by all.
It is not only godless atheists that plumb the depths of violence and depravity. Nor is it only theists who provide support and charity to those in need.
However, I will reiterate that, even as a humanist, I remain against any right to impress belief systems on impressionable kids. Objective value systems certainly, definitely, but not beleif systems - offer them all on equal terms and let the kid decide which to adopt when they feel they feel are ready to do do.
Quote from: Tank on June 18, 2018, 09:36:30 AM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 02:03:55 PM
...
A Man Said to the Universe
BY STEPHEN CRANE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
And this is why humans dreamed up gods. So they could cope in a hostile universe that gives not one shit about our existence. I accept reality and an existence in a hostile universe, you do not, you delude yourself that you matter. You do not. You are just a meat tube here to make more meat tubes and if you haven't made any new meat tubes you are essentially a failure. There is no reason for life to exist at all, none at all. Biology is just a by product of chemistry in the the right environment over sufficient time. And as far as we can tell based on recent findings while microbial life may exist in niche environments multicellular life may be vanishingly rare. None of which makes any difference to me whatsoever.
Actually, to take your argument a bit further, I'm not even here to make more meat tubes, as that would be a purpose assigned by another.
So to sum up your argument as I understand it from pure rationalism: The universe began to exist, we know not how, but assuredly we know that there is no why. It happens, purely by chance, that there is one planet in this universe that supports the development of organic life, and by chance, on this planet, the things(we aren't sure what they are) needed to generate organic life came together in exactly the right ratios at exactly the right time. From these completely unremarkable building blocks of life came, by pure chance, an ordered system able to work in opposition to one of the basic, testable laws of nature, the second law of thermodynamics, and not only that, it could replicate itself, further imposing order in a universe whose basic principles of being are a constant tend to maximum randomness. From this randomly conglomerated initial strand of, let us say for the sake of our discussion , RNA, came eventually the first single cell organism, never mind where the blueprint for the rest of the cell's parts came from.
With time, this single cell reproduced itself, and it's progeny underwent various mutations, ignoring the overwhelmingly negative effects of most mutations, to bring about variety of life. With more time, the single cell organisms became, at least some of them, multi cellular, for no apparent reason. Again ignoring negative consequences of mutations, and the likelihood of the correct mutations in the correct order, higher (subjectively) life evolved, further working against the second law of thermodynamics (why don't I just say entropy after this?).
At some point, reproduction in many organisms changed from asexual by way of cell division to sexual by way of fertilization of one organism by a compatible organism of the opposite gender. This frankly both flies in the face of efficiency and assumes the evolution of complementary sexual characteristics of two compatible organisms at the same time. But no matter, we can take that as a given since we're here so it obviously happened that way.
From this, with further mutations and violations of entropy, life adapted to its surroundings. Why some remained single cell, others became plants, and others became primary and secondary consumers is uncertain, as natural selection really should have everything vying for top of the food chain.
In the middle of this appears the first primate. Or pair of primates because again, sexual reproduction. From these basic prototypes evolved man, although the fossil record uncovered so far lacks much in the way of transitional forms either for this or any other evolutionary process.
Man then evolved the extra brain capacity to ask such existential questions as "Why am I here?" "What does life mean?" "What does it mean to be human?" despite those questions having no purpose or benefit, and actually being a detriment.
Pardon me, please, if I find this view begs coincidence too often, and asserts absolute negations while at the same time confessing its ignorance.
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Arturo on June 18, 2018, 04:13:12 PM
All you can do is hope what you are doing is right and that your actions will have good outcomes.
There is a lot more that you can do. You can look at available information in order to make better decisions. You can look at the consequences of your actions to see if they play out well. You can listen to the people that you're affecting and see if they think you're doing well or not. You can correct things once it's known that the effects are bad. There are even more things that can be done.
Nothing is going be absolutely certain, but there is more than can be done than act and hope.
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 18, 2018, 04:55:06 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 18, 2018, 09:36:30 AM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 02:03:55 PM
...
A Man Said to the Universe
BY STEPHEN CRANE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
And this is why humans dreamed up gods. So they could cope in a hostile universe that gives not one shit about our existence. I accept reality and an existence in a hostile universe, you do not, you delude yourself that you matter. You do not. You are just a meat tube here to make more meat tubes and if you haven't made any new meat tubes you are essentially a failure. There is no reason for life to exist at all, none at all. Biology is just a by product of chemistry in the the right environment over sufficient time. And as far as we can tell based on recent findings while microbial life may exist in niche environments multicellular life may be vanishingly rare. None of which makes any difference to me whatsoever.
Actually, to take your argument a bit further, I'm not even here to make more meat tubes, as that would be a purpose assigned by another.
So to sum up your argument as I understand it from pure rationalism: The universe began to exist, we know not how, but assuredly we know that there is no why. It happens, purely by chance, that there is one planet in this universe that supports the development of organic life, and by chance, on this planet, the things(we aren't sure what they are) needed to generate organic life came together in exactly the right ratios at exactly the right time. From these completely unremarkable building blocks of life came, by pure chance, an ordered system able to work in opposition to one of the basic, testable laws of nature, the second law of thermodynamics, and not only that, it could replicate itself, further imposing order in a universe whose basic principles of being are a constant tend to maximum randomness. From this randomly conglomerated initial strand of, let us say for the sake of our discussion , RNA, came eventually the first single cell organism, never mind where the blueprint for the rest of the cell's parts came from.
With time, this single cell reproduced itself, and it's progeny underwent various mutations, ignoring the overwhelmingly negative effects of most mutations, to bring about variety of life. With more time, the single cell organisms became, at least some of them, multi cellular, for no apparent reason. Again ignoring negative consequences of mutations, and the likelihood of the correct mutations in the correct order, higher (subjectively) life evolved, further working against the second law of thermodynamics (why don't I just say entropy after this?).
At some point, reproduction in many organisms changed from asexual by way of cell division to sexual by way of fertilization of one organism by a compatible organism of the opposite gender. This frankly both flies in the face of efficiency and assumes the evolution of complementary sexual characteristics of two compatible organisms at the same time. But no matter, we can take that as a given since we're here so it obviously happened that way.
From this, with further mutations and violations of entropy, life adapted to its surroundings. Why some remained single cell, others became plants, and others became primary and secondary consumers is uncertain, as natural selection really should have everything vying for top of the food chain.
In the middle of this appears the first primate. Or pair of primates because again, sexual reproduction. From these basic prototypes evolved man, although the fossil record uncovered so far lacks much in the way of transitional forms either for this or any other evolutionary process.
Man then evolved the extra brain capacity to ask such existential questions as "Why am I here?" "What does life mean?" "What does it mean to be human?" despite those questions having no purpose or benefit, and actually being a detriment.
Pardon me, please, if I find this view begs coincidence too often, and asserts absolute negations while at the same time confessing its ignorance.
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
On Entropy and Evolution.QuoteTo claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics is also grounded in a misunderstanding of where the law applies. Nobody has ever figured out how to apply the second law to living creatures. There is no meaning to the entropy of a frog. The kinds of systems that can be analyzed with the second law are much simpler.
A living organism is not so much a unified whole as it is a collection of subsystems. In the development of life, for example, a major leap occurred when cells mutated in such a way that they clumped together so that multicellular life was possible. A simple mutation allowing one cell to stick to other cells enabled a larger and more complex life form. However, such a transformation does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than superglue violates the law when it sticks your fingers to the kitchen counter.
https://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/evolution-and-the-second-law
QuoteThe second law of thermodynamics (the law of increase of entropy) is sometimes used as an argument against evolution. Evolution, the argument goes, is a decrease of entropy, because it involves things getting more organized over time, while the second law says that things get more disordered over time. So evolution violates the second law.There are many things wrong with this argument, and it has been discussed ad infinitum.
http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm
QuoteThe second law of thermodynamics is sometimes (too succinctly) stated as "disorder increases over time". That statement seems to hold true, what with mountains wearing down, machines breaking, and the inevitable, crushing march of time. But living things seem to be an exception. Plants can turn dirt (disordered) into more plants (order), and on a larger scale life has evolved from individual cells (fairly ordered) to big complicated critters (very ordered).
However, there are a couple things missing from the statement "disorder increases over time", such as a solid definition of "disorder" (it's entropy) and the often-dropped stipulation that the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems.
http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/03/q-why-doesnt-life-and-evolution-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-dont-living-things-reverse-entropy/
There are a lot more like this out there, Dfr, how many would you like? Or are they all talking rubbish in your understanding of the Universe?
Entropy will certainly eventuality stop evolution, as it will stop almost everything that goes into creating reactions, no radiation, no chemical energy gradients etc etc. Maybe some mechanical movement until gravity clumps all matter together. So, in the ultimate energy death of the Universe what the creationists etc say is true. Dead, neutral matter will be left, unilluminated by any stars. No life as we know it can exist without energy.
So long as there is radiation and other forms of energy, chemistry, mechanical action etc combining elements and splitting compounds apart then change happens. Uncountable compoundings and changes over billions of years might lead to anything. Including self repropucing molecules that get ever more mixed and complex. Sex is the really difficult bit . . .
But, all will fade.
Quote from: Davin on June 18, 2018, 04:55:36 PM
Quote from: Arturo on June 18, 2018, 04:13:12 PM
All you can do is hope what you are doing is right and that your actions will have good outcomes.
There is a lot more that you can do. You can look at available information in order to make better decisions. You can look at the consequences of your actions to see if they play out well. You can listen to the people that you're affecting and see if they think you're doing well or not. You can correct things once it's known that the effects are bad. There are even more things that can be done.
Nothing is going be absolutely certain, but there is more than can be done than act and hope.
Of course there is but there comes a time when you have to make decisions. And researching and whatever else you just said won't help but will only serve as a distraction to the decision you have to make. So in the moment of making the decision, the best mentality to have is the hope that what you are doing is right and that what you do has good outcomes. The stuff you mentioned doesn't occur while you are making the decision. There is a time and a place for that, and while you have to make a decision, that is not the time for it.
There's a bunch in there before the quoted bit. The only thing I'll add to that is that I think it is possible for a theist to be a humanist and that I think there are some. And I'm there are some hybrids, like those who agree with, "god helps those that help themselves."
Quote from: Dave on June 18, 2018, 04:49:31 PMHowever, I will reiterate that, even as a humanist, I remain against any right to impress belief systems on impressionable kids. Objective value systems certainly, definitely, but not beleif systems - offer them all on equal terms and let the kid decide which to adopt when they feel they feel are ready to do do.
I'm against using fallacious and dishonest tactics, especially when used on children. If people refrained from that, then no religious beliefs would qualify. At least not under the guise of being real.
Quote from: Arturo on June 18, 2018, 05:55:32 PM
Quote from: Davin on June 18, 2018, 04:55:36 PM
Quote from: Arturo on June 18, 2018, 04:13:12 PM
All you can do is hope what you are doing is right and that your actions will have good outcomes.
There is a lot more that you can do. You can look at available information in order to make better decisions. You can look at the consequences of your actions to see if they play out well. You can listen to the people that you're affecting and see if they think you're doing well or not. You can correct things once it's known that the effects are bad. There are even more things that can be done.
Nothing is going be absolutely certain, but there is more than can be done than act and hope.
Of course there is but there comes a time when you have to make decisions. And researching and whatever else you just said won't help but will only serve as a distraction to the decision you have to make. So in the moment of making the decision, the best mentality to have is the hope that what you are doing is right and that what you do has good outcomes. The stuff you mentioned doesn't occur while you are making the decision. There is a time and a place for that, and while you have to make a decision, that is not the time for it.
I don't know about that. When I make decisions I often consider those things. The more important the decision, the more that should be considered.
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 18, 2018, 04:55:06 PM
Pardon me, please, if I find this view begs coincidence too often, and asserts absolute negations while at the same time confessing its ignorance.
That's an awful lot of assumptions in one place, which I'm guessing may be causing your difficulty in understanding.
Quote from: Sandra Craft on June 18, 2018, 11:27:25 PM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 18, 2018, 04:55:06 PM
Pardon me, please, if I find this view begs coincidence too often, and asserts absolute negations while at the same time confessing its ignorance.
That's an awful lot of assumptions in one place, which I'm guessing may be causing your difficulty in understanding.
I think so too. I only offer the wise little green man's words to dfl:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/51/25/20/51252051a4f7961cbf4bbabcb6aa5427.png)
Because what you have learnt is wrong.
Maybe this can be a start on that unlearning: 25 Stupid Arguments Xtians Should Avoid, part 1 (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2018/06/25-stupid-arguments-christians-should-avoid-part-1/)
Part 1 only covers the first four stupid arguments, but one's already been offered here so it seemed pertinent.
I am wondering if Dfr has given up on us godless ones or were our arguments begining to nibble away at his faith?
Or maybe he is just too busy to give us time . . .
Whatever, missing the discussion.
My apologies for taking so long to reply, Dave! It's been a busy few days. And I did want to think about your post before I responded.
On Entropy and Evolution.QuoteTo claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics is also grounded in a misunderstanding of where the law applies. Nobody has ever figured out how to apply the second law to living creatures. There is no meaning to the entropy of a frog.
I believe the slow breakdown we refer to as old age, and then death, are entropy at work. Otherwise, why does death occur even without a particular mishap such as a vehicular accident, etc?
A living organism is not so much a unified whole as it is a collection of subsystems.
So, who is writing this?
In the development of life, for example, a major leap occurred when cells mutated in such a way that they clumped together so that multicellular life was possible. A simple mutation allowing one cell to stick to other cells enabled a larger and more complex life form. However, such a transformation does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than superglue violates the law when it sticks your fingers to the kitchen counter.
The difference being that superglue didn't just appear one day as random molecules stacked up over millenia in the shape of a nice, airtight, drip proof bottle of the stuff. It had a maker. QuoteThe second law of thermodynamics (the law of increase of entropy) is sometimes used as an argument against evolution. Evolution, the argument goes, is a decrease of entropy, because it involves things getting more organized over time, while the second law says that things get more disordered over time. So evolution violates the second law.There are many things wrong with this argument, and it has been discussed ad infinitum.
This is less an argument of rebuttal and more just stating I'm wrong, with no actual points being made. QuoteThe second law of thermodynamics is sometimes (too succinctly) stated as "disorder increases over time". That statement seems to hold true, what with mountains wearing down, machines breaking, and the inevitable, crushing march of time. But living things seem to be an exception. Plants can turn dirt (disordered) into more plants (order), and on a larger scale life has evolved from individual cells (fairly ordered) to big complicated critters (very ordered).
This is a re-statement of the issue.
However, there are a couple things missing from the statement "disorder increases over time", such as a solid definition of "disorder" (it's entropy) and the often-dropped stipulation that the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems.
Which is what science says earth is: https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/how-was-proven-that-nature-closed-system-497699
And I called it entropy.
Entropy will certainly eventuality stop evolution, as it will stop almost everything that goes into creating reactions, no radiation, no chemical energy gradients etc etc. Maybe some mechanical movement until gravity clumps all matter together. So, in the ultimate energy death of the Universe what the creationists etc say is true. Dead, neutral matter will be left, unilluminated by any stars. No life as we know it can exist without energy.
So long as there is radiation and other forms of energy, chemistry, mechanical action etc combining elements and splitting compounds apart then change happens. Uncountable compoundings and changes over billions of years might lead to anything. Including self repropucing molecules that get ever more mixed and complex. Sex is the really difficult bit . . .
Actually, more than sex is difficult here. These uncountable compoundings of molecules might happen. But the exactly correct compoundings would have to happen in just the right order, and on the one planet (out of trillions) we know of that can support life as we know it.
The self-replicating bit is also another issue. There is another thread, I don't remember what the name of it was, where they discussed research scientists have done to figure out how the original self-replicating RNA might have come about. They have made some interesting advances and are to be congratulated for their hard work.
However the first problem is that the scientists themselves described the process they discovered as being "like nothing found in nature today".
The even greater problem is the overall nature of the research as it applies to a validation of the atheistic philosophy : Intelligent men working with the purpose of bringing about a desired end, creating the building blocks of life, in order to show that it does not take an intelligent being, working with purpose, to create life.
Someone mentioned that "Ken Hamm ain't gonna like this one" but I doubt it will trouble him overmuch.
But, all will fade.
We are agreed on this point. The physical universe we know will not last. The Bible makes that clear.
Please pardon any bbcode bloopers :)
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 21, 2018, 03:04:15 PM
My apologies for taking so long to reply, Dave! It's been a busy few days. And I did want to think about your post before I responded.
On Entropy and Evolution.
QuoteTo claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics is also grounded in a misunderstanding of where the law applies. Nobody has ever figured out how to apply the second law to living creatures. There is no meaning to the entropy of a frog.
I believe the slow breakdown we refer to as old age, and then death, are entropy at work. Otherwise, why does death occur even without a particular mishap such as a vehicular accident, etc?
A living organism is not so much a unified whole as it is a collection of subsystems.
So, who is writing this?
In the development of life, for example, a major leap occurred when cells mutated in such a way that they clumped together so that multicellular life was possible. A simple mutation allowing one cell to stick to other cells enabled a larger and more complex life form. However, such a transformation does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than superglue violates the law when it sticks your fingers to the kitchen counter.
The difference being that superglue didn't just appear one day as random molecules stacked up over millenia in the shape of a nice, airtight, drip proof bottle of the stuff. It had a maker.
QuoteThe second law of thermodynamics (the law of increase of entropy) is sometimes used as an argument against evolution. Evolution, the argument goes, is a decrease of entropy, because it involves things getting more organized over time, while the second law says that things get more disordered over time. So evolution violates the second law.There are many things wrong with this argument, and it has been discussed ad infinitum.
This is less an argument of rebuttal and more just stating I'm wrong, with no actual points being made.
QuoteThe second law of thermodynamics is sometimes (too succinctly) stated as "disorder increases over time". That statement seems to hold true, what with mountains wearing down, machines breaking, and the inevitable, crushing march of time. But living things seem to be an exception. Plants can turn dirt (disordered) into more plants (order), and on a larger scale life has evolved from individual cells (fairly ordered) to big complicated critters (very ordered).
This is a re-statement of the issue.
However, there are a couple things missing from the statement "disorder increases over time", such as a solid definition of "disorder" (it's entropy) and the often-dropped stipulation that the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems.
Which is what science says earth is: https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/how-was-proven-that-nature-closed-system-497699
And I called it entropy.
Entropy will certainly eventuality stop evolution, as it will stop almost everything that goes into creating reactions, no radiation, no chemical energy gradients etc etc. Maybe some mechanical movement until gravity clumps all matter together. So, in the ultimate energy death of the Universe what the creationists etc say is true. Dead, neutral matter will be left, unilluminated by any stars. No life as we know it can exist without energy.
So long as there is radiation and other forms of energy, chemistry, mechanical action etc combining elements and splitting compounds apart then change happens. Uncountable compoundings and changes over billions of years might lead to anything. Including self repropucing molecules that get ever more mixed and complex. Sex is the really difficult bit . . .
Actually, more than sex is difficult here. These uncountable compoundings of molecules might happen. But the exactly correct compoundings would have to happen in just the right order, and on the one planet (out of trillions) we know of that can support life as we know it.
The self-replicating bit is also another issue. There is another thread, I don't remember what the name of it was, where they discussed research scientists have done to figure out how the original self-replicating RNA might have come about. They have made some interesting advances and are to be congratulated for their hard work.
However the first problem is that the scientists themselves described the process they discovered as being "like nothing found in nature today".
The even greater problem is the overall nature of the research as it applies to a validation of the atheistic philosophy : Intelligent men working with the purpose of bringing about a desired end, creating the building blocks of life, in order to show that it does not take an intelligent being, working with purpose, to create life.
Someone mentioned that "Ken Hamm ain't gonna like this one" but I doubt it will trouble him overmuch.
But, all will fade.
We are agreed on this point. The physical universe we know will not last. The Bible makes that clear.
Please pardon any bbcode bloopers :)
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
NoWho are you quoting?
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 21, 2018, 03:04:15 PM
The difference being that superglue didn't just appear one day as random molecules stacked up over millenia in the shape of a nice, airtight, drip proof bottle of the stuff. It had a maker.
Ye, so?
You can't conceive of any complicated thing that doesn't have a conscious creator.
I'm setting my mobility scooter to rabbit and getting outa here.
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 21, 2018, 03:04:15 PM
My apologies for taking so long to reply, Dave! It's been a busy few days. And I did want to think about your post before I responded.
The difference being that superglue didn't just appear one day as random molecules stacked up over millenia in the shape of a nice, airtight, drip proof bottle of the stuff. It had a maker.
Just because superglue had an
inventor or
developer ("makers" are those that manufacture the stuff to sell) it does not mean that the
very efficient instant adhesive on spider silk also had a "maker" in your terms. I am quite happy to believe (yes that word) that the first proto spiders possibly had no sticky silk, maybe no silk at all. Many spiders evolved as hunters and either use silk only as a lifeline or nest material, its stickiness is a sort of "by-product". Existence does not imply a maker in any rational logic - unless, of course, you simply cannot accept that things "just are" and need an emotional defence against that indifferent universe. Then you really do have to accept that your god, in allowing/causing millions of unnecessary deaths each year, really does not give much of a damn either (except in your imagination.)
QuoteThe second law of thermodynamics (the law of increase of entropy) is sometimes used as an argument against evolution. Evolution, the argument goes, is a decrease of entropy, because it involves things getting more organized over time, while the second law says that things get more disordered over time. So evolution violates the second law.There are many things wrong with this argument, and it has been discussed ad infinitum.
Dfr wrote:Quote This is less an argument of rebuttal and more just stating I'm wrong, with no actual points being made.
I admit to doing a very quick skim of a few of the
many articles that explain why so-called "Creation science" bends the physical laws to its own ends, pretzelising them sometimes.
Did you read the whole article?
QuoteThe second law of thermodynamics is sometimes (too succinctly) stated as "disorder increases over time". That statement seems to hold true, what with mountains wearing down, machines breaking, and the inevitable, crushing march of time. But living things seem to be an exception. Plants can turn dirt (disordered) into more plants (order), and on a larger scale life has evolved from individual cells (fairly ordered) to big complicated critters (very ordered).
Dfr wrote:Quote This is a re-statement of the issue.
I know, just making the point that many
real scientists and mathemeticians have, over many decades, come to the same conclusion, not just by copying what some other scientist said, just because they liked what they heard or just because it resonated with something supernatural thry believe in.
QuoteHowever, there are a couple things missing from the statement "disorder increases over time", such as a solid definition of "disorder" (it's entropy) and the often-dropped stipulation that the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems.
Dfr wrote:Quote Which is what science says earth is: https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/how-was-proven-that-nature-closed-system-497699
QuoteThere is only one true closed system in nature and that is the earth as a whole, or Gaia.
QuoteIn Greek mythology, Gaia (/ˈɡeɪ.ə/ or /ˈɡaɪ.ə/; from Ancient Greek Γαῖα, a poetical form of Γῆ Gē, "land" or "earth"), also spelled Gaea (/ˈdʒiːə/), is the personification of the Earth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia
Ok, we are back in the supernatural again. Earth is not a closed system, it receives radiation and solid matter of many kinds all the time. It gains about 40 000tonnes of solid matter yet loses 50 000tonnes more than that every year - the later mainly in terms of hydrogen and helium.
https://gizmodo.com/5882517/did-you-know-that-earth-is-getting-lighter-every-day
[Appologies here for accidently deleting much of the rest of your response.]
To reiterate, the Earth is not a closed system, as required by the second law, it has inputs and outputs, so long as it has an energy input reactions can take place. Given the number of natural elements number of possible reactions and combinations is, probably, as close to infinite as makes little difference to us. Given about 14 billion years and probably a huge number of "independant natural labs" cooking stuff up - from baked plains through warmish pools to the environnent around blistering hot "black smokers" on the sea floor . . . Billions of billions of "experinents"? Millions upon millions of stable compounds, some with an affinity for each other to make even more complex ones. . . (Read up on molecular biology.)
There is enough solid scientific evidence to support the theory regarding all but the earliest stages of evolution, and enough to make "the origin of life by means of random chemistry" a lot surer than there is that, "God did it". The latter relying on a book written in the Bronze Age that plagiarised stuff from earler legends. Oh, Bronze Age people were just as intelligent as us, they just knew a whole lot less about the physical world, other than pragmatic stuff like protecting goats from lions and how to keep cool/warm and dry etc.
OK, Dfr, you have proved youself as intrasigent in your beliefs as I am in my understandings, this discussion will go round in circles if continued, so go in peace.
Byee
As you like. I wish you well, Dave. If we could not agree, I am glad we can disagree politely, which sadly is more than these types of discussions often manage.
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk