Alphabet Argument

[Tom62]

I don't really get it either. The religious concept already self destructs with the letter B, because it cannot be certain that a higher power exists.

Can you be certain that life began in the way it is currently theorized? If not then you can't argue for anything past that point in the evolutionary chain...according to such logic.

The letter B stood for the question,  whether there is a higher power or not. The question of how life started is completely different question, that neither you or I mentioned in your previous posts. Anyway, I don't see what the question of letter B  has to do with evolution in the first place, because evolution is a not a deistic or atheistic theory. Letter B is a great obstacle for the religious concept, because is assumes that a higher power (or powers) might exist without having concrete evidence that is does exists. Believing in something doesn't make that what you believe in is true.

Letter C even moves in the fantasy realm, because is is impossible to know what the assumed nature of the unproven deity or deities is.

Incorrect, have you ever attended a debate between two religious thinkers? There are clear distinctions they can make that can demonstrate that one is more likely to be true than the other.

It is more likely that both are wrong. No discussion between religious thinkers ever brought up any thread of evidence that one religion is more right than the other. There is great disagreement between religious thinkers about the nature of God. Since every argument comes from unproven facts, fictional stories and mere assumptions, there is no reason why for example the Christian God is more likely to exists than the Hindu Gods.

Moving straight to the letter N or O doesn't require the letters B to M to be correct in the first place, because they are merely assumptions, make believe or wishful thinking.

What? Please explain...

The letter N question about morality doesn't imply that a superior power has to exists (letter B) nor does it have any relevance with the nature of any hypothetical superior power (letter C). With some exceptions (like f.i.. Buddhism or Sikhism) most religious concepts (especially those of the monotheistic kind) also score rather badly on moralistic issues. Some are already mentioned in another thread, like the concept that men are more superior than women, the intolerance towards heretics and non-believers etc. etc. If we have to conclude, according to the alphabetical  logic, that A follows B, B follows C etc. then the only right answer for the letter C is that the superior power must have an immoral nature.

The Alphabet Argument doesn't prove anything other than that the religion concept is flawed.

How? If you truly believe that evidence is what matters then such a claim is quite false. You can provide evidence that a theistic interpretation of the universe is more plausible than an atheistic interpretation, thus making it the more rational conclusion. You can then provide evidence that a monotheistic interpretation of theism is more plausible than a polytheistic interpretation, and so on. Evidence can be applied to all of them, logic and deduction are applicable at all points.

Since the religious concept is not able to jump the letter B and C "barrier" the only rational conclusion is that the religious concept cannot be correct. There is also absolutely no prove that monotheistic religions are more plausible than polytheistic religions. So far, all Gods invented by humans have no attributes that make them any better or morally superior than humans. This basically means that they are not the superior powers at work here, but merely the wild running imagination of humans crafting their God(s) in their own image.

Atheism is forced to run up against the same problem that you believe theism faces because atheism ultimately has to explain where matter came from in the first place...and that is a problem I have not seen addressed anywhere in a way I have found to be satisfactory, all interpretations I have heard simply push the question back further and further ad infinitum.

Atheism is nothing more than a disbelief in deities. It doesn't have to explain where matter comes from in the first place. Maybe we'll find it out some day, or perhaps we will never know for sure.  But for me it is always better to say "I don't know" than posing the default unproven deistic claim that "God did it".

[Titan]

The letter B stood for the question, whether there is a higher power or not. The question of how life started is completely different question, that neither you or I mentioned in your previous posts. Anyway, I don't see what the question of letter B has to do with evolution in the first place, because evolution is a not a deistic or atheistic theory. Letter B is a great obstacle for the religious concept, because is assumes that a higher power (or powers) might exist without having concrete evidence that is does exists. Believing in something doesn't make that what you believe in is true.

For many fundamentalist young earth people you would have to prove all of evolution back to that point and then prove that life began in that way and then prove that the big bang happened the way it did. Do you believe that Stephen Hawking and his kin are wrong in theorizing what was before the big bang? Since they can't actually prove it?

And yes, I know that believing in something doesn't make it true. GUYS, HONESTLY! Please site one time where I said something was true simply based on belief.

It is more likely that both are wrong. No discussion between religious thinkers ever brought up any thread of evidence that one religion is more right than the other.

LOL, "No discussion...ever" You realize that in order to verify this you would HAVE to have listened to EVERY SINGLE debate.

There is great disagreement between religious thinkers about the nature of God. Since every argument comes from unproven facts, fictional stories and mere assumptions, there is no reason why for example the Christian God is more likely to exists than the Hindu Gods.

I highly disagree, I have listened to many intellectuals discuss this and there is quite a distinction that can be made. If you like I will provide a debate for you to listen to.

The letter N question about morality doesn't imply that a superior power has to exists (letter B) nor does it have any relevance with the nature of any hypothetical superior power (letter C). With some exceptions (like f.i.. Buddhism or Sikhism) most religious concepts (especially those of the monotheistic kind) also score rather badly on moralistic issues.

It does if you want to have objective moral values. In order for objective morals to exist and to provide a rational reason for someone NOT to become a Nazi, you need to have someone who assigns value to everything. Besides, how can you score something on moralistic issues when I could say the exact same thing about atheism? If you believe that morality is subjective to a singular culture then my culture could jsut say that your culture scores horribly on morality, and it wouldn't be valid! Because there is no objective value to hold fast to.

Since the religious concept is not able to jump the letter B and C "barrier" the only rational conclusion is that the religious concept cannot be correct.

Is it not true that that is a personal opinion? Truth isn't based on whether everybody is able to come to terms with it, you know that.

There is also absolutely no prove that monotheistic religions are more plausible than polytheistic religions. So far, all Gods invented by humans have no attributes that make them any better or morally superior than humans. This basically means that they are not the superior powers at work here, but merely the wild running imagination of humans crafting their God(s) in their own image.

Again, I disagree with this, would you like me to give you a debate between religious and atheistic speakers?

Atheism is nothing more than a disbelief in deities. It doesn't have to explain where matter comes from in the first place. Maybe we'll find it out some day, or perhaps we will never know for sure. But for me it is always better to say "I don't know" than posing the default unproven deistic claim that "God did it".

It does if it is going to be taken seriously, you have to posit a theoretical alternative in order to argue against something else.

I'm sure you are aware of Pascal's Wager...do you think it doesn't apply to your last statement? Why?

No one (except the other side) is seriously claiming science knows how life began.

So we should believe atheism which doesn't provide any explanation at all because they believe that other people's interpretations are less realistic then...well...then nothing at all?

Any theory built on an assumption where later (higher) evidence does not support the initial (foundational) assumptions is built on shifting sand, it is unsupported, it is weak.

Absolutely, I'm with you 100%. It isn't supported in itself. Nor is it supported by the assumptions. It requires evidence and deduction.

Presumably for the same reason I am saying it ... a valid explanation needs solid foundation or an acceptance that the answer is not yet known (though that explanation would then need to "fit" with other explanations and provide some explanatory/predictive value which no religious explanation does).

Religious explanations do provide predictive elements. There are some books that do that. I don't think religions should be applied to science as much, so I don't pay them much attention.

Go on then ... then stand back as we demolish your supposedly superior explanation (and BTW it is NOT an atheistic explanation it is scientific).

I will, when these debates die down...It's not that I'm scared it's just that if I open up another topic in which I'm debating against 10-15 people, I won't have time for anything at all.

Whilst I concede it more frequently arises from a certain mindset atheism is not a philosophy, it is not an explanation it is nothing but a label.

It doesn't claim to be a philosophy but because of the nature of existence itself it has to lead to philosophical "answers" as it were.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I have listened to many intellectuals discuss this and there is quite a distinction that can be made. If you like I will provide a debate for you to listen to.

I've listened to many "intellectuals" arguing for the existence of god and I've never heard a single argument that I can't deal with using something I've written in the past 10 years ... that shows you just how far theist arguments have progressed in fact I'll go further, the arguments relatively moderate theists like you provide are rally very little different from those that the fundy's provide. Maybe you should think about that.

Dunno about Tom but I know I'd rather not listen to theists debating each other, they're frustrating enough when they debate atheists and scientists.

It does if you want to have objective moral values. In order for objective morals to exist and to provide a rational reason for someone NOT to become a Nazi, you need to have someone who assigns value to everything. Besides, how can you score something on moralistic issues when I could say the exact same thing about atheism? If you believe that morality is subjective to a singular culture then my culture could jsut say that your culture scores horribly on morality, and it wouldn't be valid! Because there is no objective value to hold fast to.

Few of us (atheists/secularists) seem to believe in fixed morality ... the evidence doesn't support it anyway. You don't need objective morality to prevent Nazism you need reasoned thought and common human decency amongst other things. The world has gotten on fine without objective morality so far, yes there have been atrocities and yes there been amazing instances of kindness/goodness/selflessness and so on but we're still here and hopefully will continue to be so for a long time. Who is seeking to score morality points then?

Is it not true that that is a personal opinion? Truth isn't based on whether everybody is able to come to terms with it, you know that.

If you're saying truth is variable then yes I'd agree ... science cares only about the evidence, the facts and a reasonable interpretation of the same. Truth is a religious/ideological commodity IMO.

Again, I disagree with this, would you like me to give you a debate between religious and atheistic speakers?

Been there, seen that, got the t-shirt ... theist arguments are always (without exception as far as I can tell) weak.

It does if it is going to be taken seriously, you have to posit a theoretical alternative in order to argue against something else.

That's true if you are trying to advance a scientific theory but the simple fact is that science doesn't require or request and explanation for everything, it is OK to not know at the present moment.

I'm sure you are aware of Pascal's Wager...do you think it doesn't apply to your last statement? Why?

If you fall for Pascal's Wager it simply means you have chosen to live your life within a cage of someone else's creation, admittedly a pretty gilded cage but a cage all the same. Pascal's Wager is for fools!

So we should believe atheism which doesn't provide any explanation at all because they believe that other people's interpretations are less realistic then...well...then nothing at all?

What? Atheism isn't an explanation for anything; it's a label, nothing more.

Absolutely, I'm with you 100%. It isn't supported in itself. Nor is it supported by the assumptions. It requires evidence and deduction.

The scientific method is inductive, deduction really only seems to work in Agatha Christie and Sherlock Holmes novels.

Religious explanations do provide predictive elements. There are some books that do that. I don't think religions should be applied to science as much, so I don't pay them much attention.

Um ... no ... they don't! Certainly none that can't be more rationally interpreted otherwise or constitute an open question.

I will, when these debates die down...It's not that I'm scared it's just that if I open up another topic in which I'm debating against 10-15 people, I won't have time for anything at all.

Fair enough but it's worth pointing out that it's you getting yourself in this mess ... no one is forcing you to comment in so many. OTOH I have the same weakness

It doesn't claim to be a philosophy but because of the nature of existence itself it has to lead to philosophical "answers" as it were.

I don't see why.

Kyu

[Titan]

I've listened to many "intellectuals" arguing for the existence of god and I've never heard a single argument that I can't deal with using something I've written in the past 10 years ... that shows you just how far theist arguments have progressed in fact I'll go further, the arguments relatively moderate theists like you provide are rally very little different from those that the fundy's provide. Maybe you should think about that.

Which theists in particular have you listened to?

Dunno about Tom but I know I'd rather not listen to theists debating each other, they're frustrating enough when they debate atheists and scientists.

What do you think of Ravi Zacharias?

Few of us (atheists/secularists) seem to believe in fixed morality ... the evidence doesn't support it anyway. You don't need objective morality to prevent Nazism you need reasoned thought and common human decency amongst other things.

You contradicted yourself right there. You stated:
1. The evidence doesn't support fixed morality and you don't need it.
2. All you need is common human decency.
How can you have COMMON human decency if you don't have morality in common?

The world has gotten on fine without objective morality so far, yes there have been atrocities and yes there been amazing instances of kindness/goodness/selflessness and so on but we're still here and hopefully will continue to be so for a long time. Who is seeking to score morality points then?

It was an objective moral stance that turned people from such atrocities.

If you're saying truth is variable then yes I'd agree ... science cares only about the evidence, the facts and a reasonable interpretation of the same. Truth is a religious/ideological commodity IMO.

So if scientists come to the conclusion that one race is faster, smarter and all around better than another race would it be the new truth that the society is completely in its right to rid the world of the lesser, of the nuisance.

That's true if you are trying to advance a scientific theory but the simple fact is that science doesn't require or request and explanation for everything, it is OK to not know at the present moment.

Science doesn't require an explanation for everything? How so?

If you fall for Pascal's Wager it simply means you have chosen to live your life within a cage of someone else's creation, admittedly a pretty gilded cage but a cage all the same. Pascal's Wager is for fools!

This is the problem I have when debating with many atheists. I will make a point and they will say "only fools believe that" and never "stoop" to correct me. There is almost a paradoxical proclivity in atheistic intellectual discussion towards a moral superiority. The problem is that because they are unwilling to address the issue I am never corrected if I am wrong. On the other hand if they are wrong, such a claim means that they never have to risk their own beliefs.

What? Atheism isn't an explanation for anything; it's a label, nothing more.

I didn't say atheism was an explanation, I said it didn't provide an explanation.

The scientific method is inductive, deduction really only seems to work in Agatha Christie and Sherlock Holmes novels.

LOL, I'm sure if I pushed you further you would actually rescind that statement. Since you used deductive reasoning earlier in your post.

Fair enough but it's worth pointing out that it's you getting yourself in this mess ... no one is forcing you to comment in so many. OTOH I have the same weakness

I don't see why.

Was Nietzsche a philosopher?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Which theists in particular have you listened to?

You expect me to name them all ... Lennox (by far the most outrageous), Turek (by far the most entertaining). McGrath & some Asian guy to name a few (but many more). Does it matter?

What do you think of Ravi Zacharias?

Nothing, haven't heard him, can't find an audio download. I don't have high expectations that his arguments would be any different from those I've heard to date.

You contradicted yourself right there. You stated:
1. The evidence doesn't support fixed morality and you don't need it.
2. All you need is common human decency.
How can you have COMMON human decency if you don't have morality in common?

Um ... no I didn't ... I clearly stated (in another thread to you I believe) that you don't need an absolute morality to act as if the moral code of your own culture is absolute and it seems to me many act that way. Morality is a social (ethical) system.

It was an objective moral stance that turned people from such atrocities.

Quite clearly it wasn't because a number of Germans had no significant issues with it whatsoever ... fact is you'd just like to believe it was objective (absolute) morality when no such beast exists.

So if scientists come to the conclusion that one race is faster, smarter and all around better than another race would it be the new truth that the society is completely in its right to rid the world of the lesser, of the nuisance.

Did I say or even imply that? No I did not.

Science doesn't require an explanation for everything? How so?

Although, as a theist, you may believe otherwise science does not demand that it has an explanation for everything, if it did and it had achieved it then science would be done, there would be no more need to research. However science is an ongoing and self-correcting attempt to explain the universe we observe around us turning to varied aspects of that universe for both questions and answers, let's go into a bit more detail shall we?
* Scientific explanations are self-correcting: explanations can change in the face of new evidence (older theories being ditched and newer ones becoming current ... think Newton vs. Einstein here).
* Scientific explanations are (from the statement above) non-absolute: if any scientific explanation can change in the light of new evidence nothing in science can be held to be so correct that it is above and beyond any further challenge.
* Science as an endeavour is ongoing (and this is the key point answering your question above): there are huge, amazing vistas to explore, science is exploring those that it can given our present technological and (presumably) philosophical development but not everything has been discovered yet and not everything that has been discovered has been explained or indeed is required to be explained at the present moment.

Please tell me you can understand the general concept here? There is far, far too much (sheer quantity) for the million or so scientists on the Earth to explain at present (a resource issue), some things require further technical advances to investigate them (a technical development issue) and it is expected that there may be some things we will never fully explain but here's the rub ... just because science cannot explain something now or in the future doesn't mean that your explanation of choice is correct. Science (treating it as if it had a mind of its own) is entirely content to leave some things unexplained until such time as it can devote the required technology and resources to doing so.

This is the problem I have when debating with many atheists. I will make a point and they will say "only fools believe that" and never "stoop" to correct me. There is almost a paradoxical proclivity in atheistic intellectual discussion towards a moral superiority. The problem is that because they are unwilling to address the issue I am never corrected if I am wrong. On the other hand if they are wrong, such a claim means that they never have to risk their own beliefs.

I did explain it, I said, "it simply means you have chosen to live your life within a cage of someone else's creation, admittedly a pretty gilded cage but a cage all the same." ... do you require me to give more complete reasoning? Pascal's Wager is a weak and foolish position to adopt which Is why I said it was for fools.

I didn't say atheism was an explanation, I said it didn't provide an explanation.

OK

LOL, I'm sure if I pushed you further you would actually rescind that statement. Since you used deductive reasoning earlier in your post.

Where and was it relevant to science (which is after all what my points are about)?

Was Nietzsche a philosopher?

According to Wikipedia yes.

Kyu

[Tom62]

For many fundamentalist young earth people you would have to prove all of evolution back to that point and then prove that life began in that way and then prove that the big bang happened the way it did. Do you believe that Stephen Hawking and his kin are wrong in theorizing what was before the big bang? Since they can't actually prove it?

Common, even if Stephen Hawkins and his kin can prove this with 99.9 % probability then the fundamentalist young earth people would still cling to the remaining 0.1 %.

It is more likely that both are wrong. No discussion between religious thinkers ever brought up any thread of evidence that one religion is more right than the other.

LOL, "No discussion...ever" You realize that in order to verify this you would HAVE to have listened to EVERY SINGLE debate.

Now that would be a real ordeal   .

There is also absolutely no prove that monotheistic religions are more plausible than polytheistic religions. So far, all Gods invented by humans have no attributes that make them any better or morally superior than humans. This basically means that they are not the superior powers at work here, but merely the wild running imagination of humans crafting their God(s) in their own image.

Again, I disagree with this, would you like me to give you a debate between religious and atheistic speakers?

I've seen a couple of them,  like f.i. Frank Turek against Christopher Hitchens and more decent ones. I'm more interested in a discussion between different religious thinkers, like for example Frank Turek against a Taliban, Hindu or Buddhist speaker. Now that would be real fun to watch. Most Christian vs Atheism discussion are nowadays so boring, because 1. I already know what arguments both groups bring on the table and 2. I already know how these arguments are refuted by the others.

Atheism is nothing more than a disbelief in deities. It doesn't have to explain where matter comes from in the first place. Maybe we'll find it out some day, or perhaps we will never know for sure. But for me it is always better to say "I don't know" than posing the default unproven deistic claim that "God did it".

It does if it is going to be taken seriously, you have to posit a theoretical alternative in order to argue against something else.

I'm sure you are aware of Pascal's Wager...do you think it doesn't apply to your last statement? Why?

Unlike religion, science doesn't know all the answers nor it claims that it has all the answers. Don't get me wrong, I'm not someone who follows science blindly and I also have some doubts whether science isn't wrong on some points (like f.i. global warming or the big bang). However, what I like about science is that it is willing to learn those things that it doesn't know and that it is willing to learn from its own mistakes. Yes I am aware of the Pascal Wager, it has been refuted so many times, that I don't even bother to refute it here again.

[Titan]

Kyuuketsuki

Nothing, haven't heard him, can't find an audio download. I don't have high expectations that his arguments would be any different from those I've heard to date.

Give him a chance (this is a discussion between him, an atheist and a Hindu about evil and suffering):
There are four parts, if you hate the first one then don't bother with the others. Skip the first 1:15 minutes or so, get passed the guy talking with classical music in the background.
http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Listen/LetMyPeopleThink.aspx?archive=1&pid=1163
http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Listen/LetMyPeopleThink.aspx?archive=1&pid=1169
http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Listen/LetMyPeopleThink.aspx?archive=1&pid=1179
http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Listen/LetMyPeopleThink.aspx?archive=1&pid=1185

Um ... no I didn't ... I clearly stated (in another thread to you I believe) that you don't need an absolute morality to act as if the moral code of your own culture is absolute and it seems to me many act that way. Morality is a social (ethical) system.

But you are using religion to justify this...you see what is happening is that you are stating that we can believe that are morals are absolute, but an atheist should KNOW that this is simply not the case.

Quite clearly it wasn't because a number of Germans had no significant issues with it whatsoever ... fact is you'd just like to believe it was objective (absolute) morality when no such beast exists.

But that was why it was hated so vehemently, because people believed fervently that the moral law that applied to them applied to the Nazi's treatment of the Jews.

Did I say or even imply that? No I did not.

Why doesn't it lead to that conclusion?

Although, as a theist, you may believe otherwise science does not demand that it has an explanation for everything, if it did and it had achieved it then science would be done, there would be no more need to research.

Incorrect, because scientists THEORIZE about things, but they need to utilize research to back up, or disprove, their theories.

Please tell me you can understand the general concept here? There is far, far too much (sheer quantity) for the million or so scientists on the Earth to explain at present (a resource issue), some things require further technical advances to investigate them (a technical development issue) and it is expected that there may be some things we will never fully explain but here's the rub ... just because science cannot explain something now or in the future doesn't mean that your explanation of choice is correct. Science (treating it as if it had a mind of its own) is entirely content to leave some things unexplained until such time as it can devote the required technology and resources to doing so.

But again, I'm not saying that scientists have to have an objective and complete explanation for everything but that they need to give a theory and that their theory should be compared against other people's theories and analyzed as to which one holds up best.

Again, if, hypothetically, there was a God, how could anyone possibly prove it to you?

I did explain it, I said, "it simply means you have chosen to live your life within a cage of someone else's creation, admittedly a pretty gilded cage but a cage all the same."

That isn't an explanation: that is an ad hominem reiteration of the claim being made. Not to mention the reasoning is circular: Pascal's Wager is flawed because it is weak and foolish. It is weak and foolish because it is a pretty gilded cage. It is a gilded cage because it is weak and foolish...etc. ad infintum.

Which part of his wager is irrational? Please, let me be corrected if I'm wrong. I won't simply take people's word that something  is "weak and foolish" without evidence.

Where and was it relevant to science (which is after all what my points are about)?

1. Look at the discussion of DMA, that list of numerical points is deductive reasoning. Science uses deduction all the time: Theory A is dependent on X being true and observed, X is not true, therefore A is false. That is deductive reasoning. You rule out bad theories based on deduction. You induce the midpoints, but deduction brings you to the conclusion.

According to Wikipedia yes.

What vantage point was he philosophizing from if atheism isn't a philosophy?


Tom62

One sec, I accidentally clicked submit too early.

Common, even if Stephen Hawkins and his kin can prove this with 99.9 % probability then the fundamentalist young earth people would still cling to the remaining 0.1 %.

That is besides the point and you didn't answer my question...please read that again.

Now that would be a real ordeal .

Absolutely, where were you wanting to apply it?

I've seen a couple of them, like f.i. Frank Turek against Christopher Hitchens and more decent ones. I'm more interested in a discussion between different religious thinkers, like for example Frank Turek against a Taliban, Hindu or Buddhist speaker. Now that would be real fun to watch. Most Christian vs Atheism discussion are nowadays so boring, because 1. I already know what arguments both groups bring on the table and 2. I already know how these arguments are refuted by the others.

The link I gave Kyu is between an atheist, a Hindu and a Christian...the best of all worlds

Unlike religion, science doesn't know all the answers nor it claims that it has all the answers. Don't get me wrong, I'm not someone who follows science blindly and I also have some doubts whether science isn't wrong on some points (like f.i. global warming or the big bang). However, what I like about science is that it is willing to learn those things that it doesn't know and that it is willing to learn from its own mistakes.

I agree, I hate when religious people won't even listen to dissenting views. But then again, humans from every walk of life from theism to atheism are bound by our own ignorance and bigotry at some point or another.

Yes I am aware of the Pascal Wager, it has been refuted so many times, that I don't even bother to refute it here again.

And another atheist refuses to help me understand the refutations.

[LARA]

You never pass A.  There is no proof of the existence of anything outside the self.  Otherness is always taken on faith. Cogito ergo sum only proves existence of the self to the self.  Anything outside the self has to be taken on faith whether it be a rock, a peice of pocket lint, God, Buddha or a twenty day old hamburger sitting on my countertop.

[Titan]

Yes, but given that we HAVE to rely on what we perceive as reality we can therefore make rational conclusions as to which one is the most plausible.

[LARA]

I rationally conclude that the most plausible reality is the one that I perceive.

[Titan]

Yes, so what is your objection again?

[curiosityandthecat]

I rationally conclude that the most plausible reality is the one that I perceive.

Yes, so what is your objection again?

I've no idea why, but that struck me as really, really funny.  

So, I give you something funny in return.

[Tom62]

Pascal's Wager has two major flaws. 1. it assumes that the correct God is worshiped. Since there are and have been many Gods in human history, their is a high probability that you believe in the wrong God. This destroys the mathematical advantage that Pascal's Wager claims. 2.it assumes that God rewards belief. The wager doesn't account for the possibility that God rewards honest attempted reasoning and instead punishes blind or feigned faith.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Give him a chance (this is a discussion between him, an atheist and a Hindu about evil and suffering):
There are four parts, if you hate the first one then don't bother with the others. Skip the first 1:15 minutes or so, get passed the guy talking with classical music in the background.

I've seen the light, I am converted ... yay Lord! Hallelujah!

Sigh, sorry ... nothing but the usual theist philosophical waffle as far as I'm concerned. I mean what the hell was that stupid (I mean utterly stupid) argument about evolution not being able to explain parental protection of their children (and often other children) over others? It was bullsh**!

But you are using religion to justify this...you see what is happening is that you are stating that we can believe that are morals are absolute, but an atheist should KNOW that this is simply not the case.

No I was not using religion to justify my stance on morality, and whether I know it is untrue or not is irrelevant ... my argument was about society and the way people do things not about the way atheists might do things.

But that was why it was hated so vehemently, because people believed fervently that the moral law that applied to them applied to the Nazi's treatment of the Jews.

Er ... say that again in Wigglish?

Did I say or even imply that? No I did not.

Why doesn't it lead to that conclusion?

If you're going to post something like the above would you please provide some context? This time I will do it:

I said:
If you're saying truth is variable then yes I'd agree ... science cares only about the evidence, the facts and a reasonable interpretation of the same. Truth is a religious/ideological commodity IMO.

You said:
So if scientists come to the conclusion that one race is faster, smarter and all around better than another race would it be the new truth that the society is completely in its right to rid the world of the lesser, of the nuisance.

My answer to the above is, "Why should it?" (you're the one making this assertion, justify it).

 

Although, as a theist, you may believe otherwise science does not demand that it has an explanation for everything, if it did and it had achieved it then science would be done, there would be no more need to research.

Incorrect, because scientists THEORIZE about things, but they need to utilize research to back up, or disprove, their theories.

No they don't ... there is nothing in science that says it has to have answer for everything. Yes it is attempting to do so but the reality is it hasn't got there yet and any reasonable person would be fine with that.

But again, I'm not saying that scientists have to have an objective and complete explanation for everything but that they need to give a theory and that their theory should be compared against other people's theories and analyzed as to which one holds up best.

No they don't, not if they haven't investigated it yet ... science and scientists are "content" (by which I mean accept, I'm sure it might bug them personally that an explanation for something eludes them) to answer, "We don't know yet". That that isn't the answer you want is utterly and completely irrelevant.

Again, if, hypothetically, there was a God, how could anyone possibly prove it to you?

Didn't I answer this to you in another thread? Do I have to keep repeating myself?

I did explain it, I said, "it simply means you have chosen to live your life within a cage of someone else's creation, admittedly a pretty gilded cage but a cage all the same."

That isn't an explanation: that is an ad hominem reiteration of the claim being made. Not to mention the reasoning is circular: Pascal's Wager is flawed because it is weak and foolish. It is weak and foolish because it is a pretty gilded cage. It is a gilded cage because it is weak and foolish...etc. ad infintum.

It is an explanation but since you refuse to accept it here's a fuller one:

Pascal's Wager is, in essence, the idea that you have nothing to lose by loving "God" ... I know the argument is introduced by various logical arguments but that's the upshot.

In order to accept the wager first and foremost you have to believe that the god in question exists and I could no more choose to believe in something without good reason than I could shut my own brain down, I suspect most atheists aren't atheist by choice and would feel much the same.

IOW in order to accept this challenge I have to agree to believe in something that I consider unreal, intellectually unacceptable, I have to imprison my mind in an intellectual cage and that is not now or ever something I am prepared to do. By believing what you do you have chosen to imprison your mind (to be intellectually constrained) ... what you believe must be taken on faith since there is no validatable proof for its existence. IOW by believing in a creator god one and not being willing to challenge absolutely that belief you have denied a part of your ability to critically reason so it stands to reason that a belief in a creator god is harmful!

So, as I have said to you at least twice, Pascal's Wager simply means you have chosen to live your life within a cage of someone else's creation, admittedly a pretty gilded cage but a cage all the same.

Which part of his wager is irrational? Please, let me be corrected if I'm wrong. I won't simply take people's word that something  is "weak and foolish" without evidence.

Now you can (but I'm betting you wont).

Where and was it relevant to science (which is after all what my points are about)?

1. Look at the discussion of DMA, that list of numerical points is deductive reasoning. Science uses deduction all the time: Theory A is dependent on X being true and observed, X is not true, therefore A is false. That is deductive reasoning. You rule out bad theories based on deduction. You induce the midpoints, but deduction brings you to the conclusion.

Um, I'm not claiming that to be science am I? I said "Thoughts?" clearly inviting discussion of what the guy wrote ... am I not allowed to step out and discuss things other than those you think I ought to?

According to Wikipedia yes.

What vantage point was he philosophizing from if atheism isn't a philosophy?

I have no idea ... whilst I accept that philosophical reasoning can on occasion feed into science, I am not into philosophy. I think current day philosophy has very little to do with the original Greek idea of a search for knowledge and nowadays it's largely people with huge ego's blowing deductive sunshine up each other's arses (and don't even get me started on its bastard child, metaphysics).

You realize that Hitler was a big fan of the atheist Nietzsche ...

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."
Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf"

Kyu

[LARA]

Titan wrote:  Yes, so what is your objection again?

You never pass A.

That's kind of the whole frikkin point of atheism.  Empirical reality, God is outside of it by definition. End of argument.