Alphabet Argument

[Titan]

LARA

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.

If atheists don't accept A then all of atheism is outside of empirical reality as well and you are essentially arguing against something you yourself would have to answer. If reality isn't what we observe than every single theory is equally plausible and nothing is too insane to be true.

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**!

It was about the child with the severe handicap. The parents would be more beneficial to society than the child.

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 I'm trying to get at what atheism is going to replace God with...society is irrelevant (we are discussing it in another thread anyway)...
As Nietzsche said (and I believe it is relevant to the discussion at hand): "We have killed [God] - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning?"

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?

Why were we upset that the Nazi's exterminated the Jews? Because we felt that the moral law that applied to people in our society applies to the Nazis and everyone else around the world.

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).

Because it is more beneficial to the society to do so. How does naturalism provide an alternative to such a philosophy?

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 know I asked you in another thread, I don't know if you answered it. It was recent so I may have not gotten to it yet.

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.

Already wrong, there are three elements to it.
1) Death: Nothing can be gained by being atheistic in the long run. Once you die, if you are right we both rot in the ground. If I am right, I go to Heaven and you don't. If someone else is right and we are both wrong, you had 0% chance I had better than that. However, when arguing I would often construct a quick extension of this argument whereby Christianity is comparatively the most rational choice from a cost-benefit analysis vantage point.
2) Life: I am completely satisfied with my life. There is nothing for me to gain in switching to atheism, so why should I do so? If religion provides the answers to happiness as well as, if not better than, atheism then why is it a lesser choice? Because science will give us answers? Theists have made great strides in science all throughout history. Technology and discovery have ridden on the back of "sharing the message" that many religions adhere to.
3) Debate: Why would an atheist argue with anyone who wasn't asking to be debated with? Naturalistic atheists believe that religion developed as a need to solve societal problems including meaning and morality. So why get rid of it? It is clearly a necessity for some people. If ANYTHING the rational atheist should encourage altruistic religious belief and try to convince those who are ignorant that their religion wants them to support the sciences.

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.

Wrong for the second time. The wager includes the supposition that if atheists are correct there is an alternative ending whereby no one finds out who was right.

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.

This shows me that you have never truly tried to grasp Pascal's Wager because it doesn't necessitate an assumption that God exists. It merely presents a cost-benefit problem that atheists need to address.

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?

So what is wrong with deductive reasoning? Or was I misrepresenting your earlier statements regarding the subject?

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).

I need an answer to the question. Simply stating I don't know means that we can never reach "true knowledge" in this debate. Give me 3 possible vantage points that the atheist philosopher Nietzsche could have been philosophizing from (I can only come up with 1 so if you want to stick with the 1 I have come to then we can proceed from there).

"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"

Of course he is going to claim to be a Christian! He has to garner support! If he stated he was an atheist and a big fan of Nietzsche people would have turned on him. His claiming he was a Christian doesn't make it so. If I state I am a Rolex it wouldn't make the statement true. I like the Abraham Lincoln quote: "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

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.

1. Probability isn't based on the number of possible answers being large. For instance, there are an infinite number of answers to the question: "What is 2 + 2" but there is still only one solution. Second, if God is actually invested in the world then he would not want the belief in him/her/themselves to subside. So we can rule out all the religions that are no longer practiced. Third, the other religions can be held up to the same cost benefit analysis. For instance: Hinduism - You get to live another life so it doesn't matter if you don't believe in this one. Islam - Many Muslims believe that they are going to hell anyway, their only hope is that Muhammad gets into heaven and asks for them (then women have to rely on their husbands getting requested and THEN requesting them). Buddhism - so inclusive that it thereby excludes itself. Etc. You can do this with so many religions. 2. If God doesn't reward belief then it doesn't matter, the atheist will still not know he's right and the alternative is STILL not better.

curiosityandthecat
OW OW OW OW!!!!

[Kyuuketsuki]

Titan,

You're aware I've replied?

Kyu

[Titan]

Sorry Kyu, replace "LARA" with "Kyu" I get confused with who I'm replying to sometimes. The majority of that last post was about your post...sorry.

[Kyuuketsuki]

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**!

It was about the child with the severe handicap. The parents would be more beneficial to society than the child.

No I meant about the parents throwing their child to the bank of a river and dying doing it ... the point your prophet was making was that it is contra-evolutionary (not that he doesn't accept evolution, it's about explaining complex behaviour of this kind) when it can actually be quite easily observed in nature, even if it wasn't the parents it's quite easy to see it's a typical herd/group behaviour in mammals and so is not at all against evolution.

But I'm trying to get at what atheism is going to replace God with...society is irrelevant (we are discussing it in another thread anyway)...
As Nietzsche said (and I believe it is relevant to the discussion at hand): "We have killed [God] - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning?"

You understand that Nietzsche is not literally claiming we have killed "God" simply rejecting the concept of deity?

In order to need to replace the ultimate arbiter you first have to demonstrate that such an arbiter is required. Have fun on that

"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"

Of course he is going to claim to be a Christian! He has to garner support! If he stated he was an atheist and a big fan of Nietzsche people would have turned on him. His claiming he was a Christian doesn't make it so. If I state I am a Rolex it wouldn't make the statement true. I like the Abraham Lincoln quote: "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

So a True Christian (tm) is only what you define as a Christian? Excellent ... that would be the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Kyu

[LARA]

Titan wrote:
if atheists don't accept A...

No, that's not what I meant by you never pass A, acceptance of external reality.  A is accepted but not passed.  B territory, beings or supernatural forces outside of the reality we can see and measure isn't of issue to the reality, so the argument ends there for me.  Debates on whether there is anything outside of this reality fall into the category of the imaginary and religious.

My simplistic analogy is kind of like this, you build a world based on Harry Potter, and someone keeps saying Luke Skywalker can beat Voldemort and you can't have magic without the force.  And it's like, well, we could come up with a separate story line for that, but it still doesn't change the fact that Luke Skywalker doesn't exist in Harry Potter.

[Titan]

Kyuuketsuki

No I meant about the parents throwing their child to the bank of a river and dying doing it ... the point your prophet was making was that it is contra-evolutionary (not that he doesn't accept evolution, it's about explaining complex behaviour of this kind) when it can actually be quite easily observed in nature, even if it wasn't the parents it's quite easy to see it's a typical herd/group behaviour in mammals and so is not at all against evolution.

The strong dying for the handicapped-weak is part of evolution?

You understand that Nietzsche is not literally claiming we have killed "God" simply rejecting the concept of deity?

He was claiming that God could no longer stand up against the meta-physician's blade. That philosophically God had become a delusion.

In order to need to replace the ultimate arbiter you first have to demonstrate that such an arbiter is required. Have fun on that

If I used what you just said in response to any arguments against Christian doctrine that were based on God's character what would you say? I'm guessing you would probably conclude that I was ignorant. It appears you got cornered on this point and are trying to avoid the conclusion you have to reach.

So a True Christian (tm) is only what you define as a Christian? Excellent ... that would be the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Again, if I said: "I'm a car" it wouldn't make it so. Yes, there is a definition of true Christian and yes there is a definition of a true car. It isn't based on my wishes it is based on the founding principles of Christianity. Ask the vast majority of Christians: if someone says they are a Christian does that automatically make them one? Neither of which can be seen in Hitler's life especially given his quote I mentioned and his love of Nietzsche's philosophies.

LARA

B territory, beings or supernatural forces outside of the reality we can see and measure isn't of issue to the reality, so the argument ends there for me. Debates on whether there is anything outside of this reality fall into the category of the imaginary and religious.

LOL, I'm glad you separated religious from imaginary (whoops). If you only care about what can be measured then things like the sun's nuclear reactions that occurred prior to our ability to measure such things are strictly imaginary. Within your own dissent you offer the reason for disregarding you. Must we really limit everything imaginable to what we can perceive and measure? Furthermore, do you completely ignore scientists when they theorize about what happened before the Big Bang?

My simplistic analogy is kind of like this, you build a world based on Harry Potter, and someone keeps saying Luke Skywalker can beat Voldemort and you can't have magic without the force. And it's like, well, we could come up with a separate story line for that, but it still doesn't change the fact that Luke Skywalker doesn't exist in Harry Potter.

Poor analogy. You know the entire story line of Harry Potter which would mean that you would know the entire story line of the universe. So unless you can look at part of every space in every dimension in every era of all time then you can't make this claim.

[LARA]

Titan wrote:  Must we really limit everything imaginable to what we can perceive and measure? Furthermore, do you completely ignore scientists when they theorize about what happened before the Big Bang?

This is not my point Titan.  I am not asking anyone to ever limit their imagination, only to separate the real from the imaginary.  Religion is a mix of the imaginary, the historical, the moral, the cultural, the metaphorical.

I don't completely ignore anyone's theories on what happened before the Big Bang.  but without any factual evidence it is still just theoretical and basically good imagination based on reality.

[Kyuuketsuki]

No I meant about the parents throwing their child to the bank of a river and dying doing it ... the point your prophet was making was that it is contra-evolutionary (not that he doesn't accept evolution, it's about explaining complex behaviour of this kind) when it can actually be quite easily observed in nature, even if it wasn't the parents it's quite easy to see it's a typical herd/group behaviour in mammals and so is not at all against evolution.

The strong dying for the handicapped-weak is part of evolution?

I said parents sacrificing for children ... this handicapped thing is something you've plucked out of thin air.

You understand that Nietzsche is not literally claiming we have killed "God" simply rejecting the concept of deity?

He was claiming that God could no longer stand up against the meta-physician's blade. That philosophically God had become a delusion.

IOW he was rejecting the concept of deity.

In order to need to replace the ultimate arbiter you first have to demonstrate that such an arbiter is required. Have fun on that

Incorrect, if morality is based on a set code of virtues and vices, and that code is based on the conception of a higher order in every society then you need to rationalize what the new "higher order" is going to be. That is the point Nietzsche was trying to make.

I don't give a rat's arse what point Nietzsche was trying to make (as I repeatedly tell you I am not a philosopher) ... I am saying TO YOU that if you want me to justify why no ultimate moral arbiter is necessary you have to FIRST demonstrate why one is.

Why were we upset that the Nazi's exterminated the Jews? Because we felt that the moral law that applied to people in our society applies to the Nazis and everyone else around the world.

Pretty much.

But YOU as an atheist KNOW that they don't apply to everyone. How do you reconcile that?

I don't have to, as I imply above there is pretty much an agreement over some aspects of morality today (such as genocide, slavery, child abuse being wrong) ... it isn't universal by any means but I tend to believe it's a good thing for much the same reason as why I told you I rejected slavery.

Pretty sure I did ... I guess what I would actually need is to be taken back in time and see things before the universe existed, see the universe created, see all the creative acts, heaven, hell, evidence of all the various things claimed and then I'd want evidence that it wasn't just all in my mind.

All that stuff could simply be your mind getting hit by a powerful chemical imbalance. If you can explain things as real to people as NDE's by just a series of chemicals then your "proof" could fall under that too? Furthermore, would you logically have to wait for science to come up with the answer for what happened? By your own admissions.

[SHRUG] In that case there's no god.

On Pascal's Wager, you can answer those points any way you wish ... in every post you have made you have utterly failed to demonstrate that you have not chosen to live in a gilded intellectual cage. You have imprisoned your mind by submitting to a higher authority, your god ... atheists do not.

As for his comment that atheists should be quiet on the subject of religion, that is no more true than to say that the innocent should be silent on the matter of crime. Though we may not indulge in religion it affects our world deeply and hurts us when we see its dangers.

This still doesn't address the problem. Who cares about the rest of the world? What about the religious people who AREN'T hurting people? What about the atheists who ARE hurting people? Do you try to bring atheists to a more peaceful religion?[/quote]

Some atheists I am sure hurt people but vastly more damage has been done in the name of religion than in the name of atheism ... yeah, yeah I know you'll attempt to claim Hitler, Stalin, Mao and so on were atheist but not only was Hitler a Christian, not only did Stalin & communism have several strong periods of cooperation with the orthodox church (the longest being 15 years as I recall) but the truth is they actually did what they did in the name of their ideologies (be they religiously inspired or not)  and not in the name of atheism.

So I don't have an inherent issue with deduction except that it can be used (and is in many philosophical and metaphysical arguments) to "prove" many things that have no real basis ... in short there’s nothing wrong with it at all as long as you are able to understand the distinction between the two and place appropriate weight on each.

It isn't proof because when people use deductive reasoning they rarely use clear facts for the premises. In it's pure form it is a part of proof. Since it simply brings you to the rational conclusion of the evidence in regards to anything. However, deduction is not often valid in the population's general philosophical discussions.

No, deductive evidence is rarely (if ever) proof ... it can lead to certain hypotheses which then require evidence (inductively reasoned support)

If I used what you just said in response to any arguments against Christian doctrine that were based on God's character what would you say? I'm guessing you would probably conclude that I was ignorant. It appears you got cornered on this point and are trying to avoid the conclusion you have to reach.

As I keep trying to tell you I am not a philosopher, I know nothing at all about Nietzsche (I can't even spell his name without checking)! How the hell can I answer the question?

Again, if I said: "I'm a car" it wouldn't make it so. Yes, there is a definition of true Christian and yes there is a definition of a true car. It isn't based on my wishes it is based on the founding principles of Christianity. Ask the vast majority of Christians: if someone says they are a Christian does that automatically make them one? Neither of which can be seen in Hitler's life especially given his quote I mentioned and his love of Nietzsche's philosophies.

Broadly speaking you are claiming Hitler can't have been a Christian because he doesn't act like a Christian yet:

•   The Jews have been subject to repeated religious pogroms throughout history.
•   The German Church implicitly supported Hitler, services were held throughout WW2 honouring him and praying for his success in various endeavours.
•   The Catholic church declared Hitler the favourite son of Europe fully aware that this was going on).
•   Hitler claimed to be Christian
•   Hitler's actions and attitudes are understood to have stemmed from his religious upbringing.
•   Hitler's elite troops (the SS), had "Gott Mit Uns" ("God Be With Us") inscribed on their belts.

As far as I can tell the only reason you are so keen to dismiss Hitler as a Christian is that you apparently do not want him to be one of yours, you do not believe Christians should act the way he did ... IOW it's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Kyu

[Titan]

No I meant about the parents throwing their child to the bank of a river and dying doing it ... the point your prophet was making was that it is contra-evolutionary (not that he doesn't accept evolution, it's about explaining complex behaviour of this kind) when it can actually be quite easily observed in nature, even if it wasn't the parents it's quite easy to see it's a typical herd/group behaviour in mammals and so is not at all against evolution.

The strong dying for the handicapped-weak is part of evolution?

I said parents sacrificing for children ... this handicapped thing is something you've plucked out of thin air.

Not out of thin air, it was from one of his messages but I can't remember which one and I apparently accidentally combined it with this one. But I'll just ask the question directly then: How does a completely healthy parent sacrificing their lives for the life of their debilitated child match up with evolution?

I don't give a rat's arse what point Nietzsche was trying to make (as I repeatedly tell you I am not a philosopher) ... I am saying TO YOU that if you want me to justify why no ultimate moral arbiter is necessary you have to FIRST demonstrate why one is.

Can we keep the heated aspect of this debate to a minimum? I was saying that an ultimate moral arbiter is necessary because you can' t come to a coherent, rational set of principles without one. You can't argue against genocide, rape, pedophilia, hatred, violence and all those other aspects of society except as to how they relate to you or your family in a direct sense. I am asking you how you come to conclusions that genocide is wrong and comparing it to the fact that I am able to argue against such a thing from a Biblical account. I am showing you two choices and asking you two admit which one makes more sense.

I don't have to, as I imply above there is pretty much an agreement over some aspects of morality today (such as genocide, slavery, child abuse being wrong) ... it isn't universal by any means but I tend to believe it's a good thing for much the same reason as why I told you I rejected slavery.

So you are willing to admit that genocide is only wrong as long as it is not in the best interest of your particular society? Is that correct?

Pretty sure I did ... I guess what I would actually need is to be taken back in time and see things before the universe existed, see the universe created, see all the creative acts, heaven, hell, evidence of all the various things claimed and then I'd want evidence that it wasn't just all in my mind.

All that stuff could simply be your mind getting hit by a powerful chemical imbalance. If you can explain things as real to people as NDE's by just a series of chemicals then your "proof" could fall under that too? Furthermore, would you logically have to wait for science to come up with the answer for what happened? By your own admissions.

[SHRUG] In that case there's no god.

No, I'm calling you out on your bluff. Ultimately no amount of evidence from God would lead you to believe in Him, so are you truly a rationalist? If you can even manufacture a sorry excuse for an alternate reasoning to some miraculous sign you will happily brood in your ignorance and disbelief.

On Pascal's Wager, you can answer those points any way you wish ... in every post you have made you have utterly failed to demonstrate that you have not chosen to live in a gilded intellectual cage. You have imprisoned your mind by submitting to a higher authority, your god ... atheists do not.

YES! I need to make a note of this point for future reference because ultimately this will answer so many questions about Christianity that you present accusingly. This is essentially the reason for sin, death and hell. You choose yourself over another arbiter (even if said arbiter is the one you owe everything to). One person likened this to man's preference to be a ruler in hell than a servant in heaven; which your point tends to lean towards.

Some atheists I am sure hurt people but vastly more damage has been done in the name of religion than in the name of atheism ...

That is heavily disputed. Apologeticists argue that such acts are illogical outworkings of religion (especially Christianity) whereas the atrocities committed by atheists are logical outworkings of the system based on disbelief.

yeah, yeah I know you'll attempt to claim Hitler, Stalin, Mao and so on were atheist but not only was Hitler a Christian, not only did Stalin & communism have several strong periods of cooperation with the orthodox church (the longest being 15 years as I recall) but the truth is they actually did what they did in the name of their ideologies (be they religiously inspired or not) and not in the name of atheism.

Ahhh, the disregard for my previous points is obvious here. I pointed out that Hitler's philosophy was COMPLETELY contrary to Christianity and his quote about wanting "a generation devoid of a conscience, imperious, relentless and cruel" does not in anyway suggest that he was a Christian. Again, if I said I was a car would I be a car? I realize that such logic is simplistic but you appear to be in denial of basic principles. Also, Stalin turned away from Christianity and turned to Atheism, he also saw the value in using the church to manipulate people.

Again, I'm not staking my ideological claim on "Christians" and "the church" but on Jesus and the Bible. There is a HUGE difference.

No, deductive evidence is rarely (if ever) proof ... it can lead to certain hypotheses which then require evidence (inductively reasoned support)

I have a challenge for you, go look at the middle parts of a geometrical proof and try to claim what you just claimed once more.

As I keep trying to tell you I am not a philosopher, I know nothing at all about Nietzsche (I can't even spell his name without checking)! How the hell can I answer the question?

But it doesn't even require a knowledge of Nietzsche, I simply want to address the point he is making and see if you can challenge it. For spelling his name I just have committed the idea to memory that his name has every consonant known to man: A T? Yep. A Z? Absolutely? An SCH? oh you better believe it.

Broadly speaking you are claiming Hitler can't have been a Christian because he doesn't act like a Christian yet:

• The Jews have been subject to repeated religious pogroms throughout history.
• The German Church implicitly supported Hitler, services were held throughout WW2 honouring him and praying for his success in various endeavours.
• The Catholic church declared Hitler the favourite son of Europe fully aware that this was going on).
• Hitler claimed to be Christian
• Hitler's actions and attitudes are understood to have stemmed from his religious upbringing.
• Hitler's elite troops (the SS), had "Gott Mit Uns" ("God Be With Us") inscribed on their belts.

As far as I can tell the only reason you are so keen to dismiss Hitler as a Christian is that you apparently do not want him to be one of yours, you do not believe Christians should act the way he did ... IOW it's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

AGAIN, these are clearly illogical outworkings of Christian doctrine. Present the verses that support what Hitler was doing...go on, I'll wait... When you have tried, failed and come crawling back let me remind you that I could take any statement you say: let me pick a  random one: "Broadly speaking you are claiming Hitler can't have been a Christian" and then turn that into: "Kyu told me that atheists believe Hitler was good." Now, would I be representing your beliefs?

The "No True Scotsman" fallacy is not applicable because there is not a coherent set of established principles that deem who is a Scotsman and who is not, there is, however, a set of principles like that for Christians.

[Kyuuketsuki]

But I'll just ask the question directly then: How does a completely healthy parent sacrificing their lives for the life of their debilitated child match up with evolution?

I don't know, it's not something I can identify with.

You can't argue against genocide, rape, pedophilia, hatred, violence and all those other aspects of society except as to how they relate to you or your family in a direct sense. I am asking you how you come to conclusions that genocide is wrong and comparing it to the fact that I am able to argue against such a thing from a Biblical account. I am showing you two choices and asking you two admit which one makes more sense.

Yes you can ... a given culture can recognise that these things aren't good for it because if you do it to others, you can have it done to you. The bible is laughably immoral.

So you are willing to admit that genocide is only wrong as long as it is not in the best interest of your particular society? Is that correct?

Morality is a flexible concept  so yes.

No, I'm calling you out on your bluff. Ultimately no amount of evidence from God would lead you to believe in Him, so are you truly a rationalist? If you can even manufacture a sorry excuse for an alternate reasoning to some miraculous sign you will happily brood in your ignorance and disbelief.

I've already told you what I'd want for evidence (might be in another thread) but ultimately it's you that making the unsupported claim (that there is a god) so it's you that has to provide evidence in support of it. I'm happy to sit here and assume there is no such being for the same reasons I am happy to sit here and assume there is no invisible flying purple people eater sitting behind my chair ... it's not an irrational position to take.

On Pascal's Wager, you can answer those points any way you wish ... in every post you have made you have utterly failed to demonstrate that you have not chosen to live in a gilded intellectual cage. You have imprisoned your mind by submitting to a higher authority, your god ... atheists do not.

YES! I need to make a note of this point for future reference because ultimately this will answer so many questions about Christianity that you present accusingly. This is essentially the reason for sin, death and hell. You choose yourself over another arbiter (even if said arbiter is the one you owe everything to). One person likened this to man's preference to be a ruler in hell than a servant in heaven; which your point tends to lean towards.

Er ... whut?

So you're saying that even if I wont accept this ultimate arbiter as real, even though you have no evidence for that ultimate arbiter, even thought there is copious evidence that morality is flexible that I am dependent on this ultimate arbiter anyway? And that because of that I'm a sinner?

Get outta here man!

Some atheists I am sure hurt people but vastly more damage has been done in the name of religion than in the name of atheism ...

That is heavily disputed. Apologeticists argue that such acts are illogical outworkings of religion (especially Christianity) whereas the atrocities committed by atheists are logical outworkings of the system based on disbelief.

I see ... so atheists are responsible for all the religious wars that have wracked this world over the millennia? Excuse me but ... BULLSH***!!!!!

yeah, yeah I know you'll attempt to claim Hitler, Stalin, Mao and so on were atheist but not only was Hitler a Christian, not only did Stalin & communism have several strong periods of cooperation with the orthodox church (the longest being 15 years as I recall) but the truth is they actually did what they did in the name of their ideologies (be they religiously inspired or not) and not in the name of atheism.

Ahhh, the disregard for my previous points is obvious here. I pointed out that Hitler's philosophy was COMPLETELY contrary to Christianity and his quote about wanting "a generation devoid of a conscience, imperious, relentless and cruel" does not in anyway suggest that he was a Christian. Again, if I said I was a car would I be a car? I realize that such logic is simplistic but you appear to be in denial of basic principles. Also, Stalin turned away from Christianity and turned to Atheism, he also saw the value in using the church to manipulate people.

No ... what you did was use the No True Scotsman fallacy.

I neither known nor greatly care what Stalin's personal religious views were (though I understood he was Christian), the fact is that that Communist Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church cooperated (that is to say they USED EACH OTHER) for periods lasting well over a decade (it was politically convenient for both parties).

Again, I'm not staking my ideological claim on "Christians" and "the church" but on Jesus and the Bible. There is a HUGE difference.

The one that implicitly says it's OK to wipe entire civilisations (and almost an entire race) out?

No, deductive evidence is rarely (if ever) proof ... it can lead to certain hypotheses which then require evidence (inductively reasoned support)

I have a challenge for you, go look at the middle parts of a geometrical proof and try to claim what you just claimed once more.

Demonstrate this please.

As I keep trying to tell you I am not a philosopher, I know nothing at all about Nietzsche (I can't even spell his name without checking)! How the hell can I answer the question?

But it doesn't even require a knowledge of Nietzsche, I simply want to address the point he is making and see if you can challenge it. For spelling his name I just have committed the idea to memory that his name has every consonant known to man: A T? Yep. A Z? Absolutely? An SCH? oh you better believe it.

You originally asked, first, "What vantage point was he philosophizing from if atheism isn't a philosophy?" then "Give me 3 possible vantage points that the atheist philosopher Nietzsche could have been philosophizing from (I can only come up with 1 so if you want to stick with the 1 I have come to then we can proceed from there)" which are not questions I can answer. The man was a philosopher and you appear to be implicitly claiming that something he said was simple, that it can be understood by someone who not only is not a philosopher but has no real interest in philosophy. I'm sorry but I disagree and I decline to answer the question because I have no understanding whosoever of what Nietzsche was arguing.

If, however, you wish to ask me a question that I do have sufficient experience and/or knowledge of to answer then go for it:)

p.s. repeatedly asking me a question that I make no bones about not being able to answer is not only neither big nor clever but actually strikes me as rather deviousness and implies you wish to win at any cost (but that's just my opinion).

Broadly speaking you are claiming Hitler can't have been a Christian because he doesn't act like a Christian yet:

• The Jews have been subject to repeated religious pogroms throughout history.
• The German Church implicitly supported Hitler, services were held throughout WW2 honouring him and praying for his success in various endeavours.
• The Catholic church declared Hitler the favourite son of Europe fully aware that this was going on).
• Hitler claimed to be Christian
• Hitler's actions and attitudes are understood to have stemmed from his religious upbringing.
• Hitler's elite troops (the SS), had "Gott Mit Uns" ("God Be With Us") inscribed on their belts.

As far as I can tell the only reason you are so keen to dismiss Hitler as a Christian is that you apparently do not want him to be one of yours, you do not believe Christians should act the way he did ... IOW it's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

AGAIN, these are clearly illogical outworkings of Christian doctrine. Present the verses that support what Hitler was doing...go on, I'll wait... When you have tried, failed and come crawling back let me remind you that I could take any statement you say: let me pick a  random one: "Broadly speaking you are claiming Hitler can't have been a Christian" and then turn that into: "Kyu told me that atheists believe Hitler was good." Now, would I be representing your beliefs?

Why? Your bible CLEARLY supports the concept of genocide, it is CLEARLY anti-Semitic in its core teachings (the Jews are "Christ Killers") ... of course it depends upon your interpretation but I have to ask exactly what is "clearly" illogical about yet another anti-Semitic pogrom?

The "No True Scotsman" fallacy is not applicable because there is not a coherent set of established principles that deem who is a Scotsman and who is not, there is, however, a set of principles like that for Christians.

Yes and they include genocide, slavery, murder, child sacrifice and the killing of homosexuals just to mention a few.

Oh, and the 10 commandments (which I suspect you are basing your "principles" on) are at best simplistic, arguably wrong.

Kyu

[Zarathustra]

I'm not sure whether to keep out of this or what. I must admit that the Nietzsche thing annoys me somewhat.
Kyu just dismisses philosophy altogether, and Titans understanding is heavily flawed. And Titan: You're obviously not any more at home in philosophical thinking/methodology, than you are in understanding what science is all about. Nothing wrong with that, I just don't understand why you employ it?

In order to need to replace the ultimate arbiter you first have to demonstrate that such an arbiter is required. Have fun on that

Incorrect, if morality is based on a set code of virtues and vices, and that code is based on the conception of a higher order in every society then you need to rationalize what the new "higher order" is going to be. That is the point Nietzsche was trying to make.

Wrong!! This is what you're saying:

1) Assumption: Morality is based on a set code
2) Assumption: That code is based on a deity or "conception of a higher order"
3) Conclusion: Inevitable question follows: What is the new higher order if not "god".

Nietzcshe's point was NOT 3! It is like saying that atheists are the ones that have to prove gods inexistence. What Nietzsche stated was that assumption number two is invalid. The passage you were referring from simply states, that it follows from this, that 1 is also invalid.

I really don't mean to sound condescending, but I strongly advice that you take a course in understanding Nietzsche (that is not given by a biased, i.e. christian teacher), before quoting and using him.

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

A question like this is what reveals you don't know much about the subject, sorry. What do you mean by vantage point? "Philosophizing from"...? Do you have any clue about philosophic method?

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).

Unfortunately you're half right. Actually the professional philosophers can be divided app. in half between the two "scools" you are describing. The "deductive sunshine" boys just tends to be less tentative, and therefore louder in the media.

Oh and the Nietzsche- Hitler connection? Hitler's way of reading Nietzsche is widely regarded as misunderstanding him, in christian terms. And Hitler WAS christian. But since this is disregarded in the discussion - and Nietzsche is being presented in a strawman fashion. - I'll butt out of this discussion.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Unfortunately you're half right. Actually the professional philosophers can be divided app. in half between the two "scools" you are describing. The "deductive sunshine" boys just tends to be less tentative, and therefore louder in the media.

OK, can you explain this more? Whilst I am not "into philosophy" I kind of sometimes wonder if I should be and it seems to me that your remark implies there is a more realistic (if that's the word) core of philosophy that does offer more value than I currently see it as having. This isn't me being sarky, I suppose I'd like to know why I should pay philosophy more attention?

Oh and the Nietzsche- Hitler connection? Hitler's way of reading Nietzsche is widely regarded as misunderstanding him, in christian terms. And Hitler WAS christian. But since this is disregarded in the discussion - and Nietzsche is being presented in a strawman fashion. - I'll butt out of this discussion.

Another thing I'd like to know more about so even if you have to do it by another PM I'd really like to know.

You see this is where the idea of a private area for select individuals could come in, it could almost be a place of learning for us.

Kyu

[Zarathustra]

Unfortunately you're half right. Actually the professional philosophers can be divided app. in half between the two "scools" you are describing. The "deductive sunshine" boys just tends to be less tentative, and therefore louder in the media.

OK, can you explain this more? Whilst I am not "into philosophy" I kind of sometimes wonder if I should be and it seems to me that your remark implies there is a more realistic (if that's the word) core of philosophy that does offer more value than I currently see it as having. This isn't me being sarky, I suppose I'd like to know why I should pay philosophy more attention?

Well realistic is a good word, remember that "philosophy" actually means "love of knowledge". As Popper said "metaphysics is the fuel of science", and for a good reason. Note that metaphysics in this quote is denoting real metaphysics (in the Aristotelian sense), not the common (religion-based) conception of the word.
So in other words, yes there's a lot of very scientifically and rationally rewarding disciplines within philosophy. I expect you even know of some of them, even though you didn't think so. Like Popper's falsificationism, or Thomas Kuhn and his thoughts about "paradigmes". I could go on and on, but it is such a vast field, and is off topic to this thread, so:

Another thing I'd like to know more about so even if you have to do it by another PM I'd really like to know.

You see this is where the idea of a private area for select individuals could come in, it could almost be a place of learning for us.

Kyu

I think that is a very good idea, since there are probably many people here with expertize in very different areas. I certainly have tried being baffled by ID arguments about microbes, since that isn't my field. There should be an area for factual Q&A... I would gladly share some of philosophy's merits.. and problems as well.

I'm not sure if I should PM you about the Nietzsche issue or actually make a thread about it, since it's a common argument from theists. But it works like the ID argument: Just like ID mainly adresses popular-science, not the hardcore scientific findings/writing. - Many theists invoke Nietzsche in arguments, without having first hand knowledge about (and a concise understanding of) his thoughts. It's mainly based on "hear-say", and the fact that they stop considering it unbiased as soon as they read "god is dead".

What do you think? It might also be the first subject for the private area.

[Titan]

But I'll just ask the question directly then: How does a completely healthy parent sacrificing their lives for the life of their debilitated child match up with evolution?

I don't know, it's not something I can identify with.

Christianity has a better response.

You can't argue against genocide, rape, pedophilia, hatred, violence and all those other aspects of society except as to how they relate to you or your family in a direct sense. I am asking you how you come to conclusions that genocide is wrong and comparing it to the fact that I am able to argue against such a thing from a Biblical account. I am showing you two choices and asking you two admit which one makes more sense.

Yes you can ... a given culture can recognise that these things aren't good for it because if you do it to others, you can have it done to you. The bible is laughably immoral.

Two things:
1. You can have those things happen to you REGARDLESS of whether you do it to others. That is not a valid reason, try again.
2. How can the Bible be immoral if it is based on society at the time? Hmmm?

So you are willing to admit that genocide is only wrong as long as it is not in the best interest of your particular society? Is that correct?

Morality is a flexible concept so yes.

So why did this forum kick out that neo-Nazi guy with the different perspective? Society raised him differently. Why don't you ask Laetusatheos about her ruling on that.

No, I'm calling you out on your bluff. Ultimately no amount of evidence from God would lead you to believe in Him, so are you truly a rationalist? If you can even manufacture a sorry excuse for an alternate reasoning to some miraculous sign you will happily brood in your ignorance and disbelief.

I've already told you what I'd want for evidence (might be in another thread) but ultimately it's you that making the unsupported claim (that there is a god) so it's you that has to provide evidence in support of it. I'm happy to sit here and assume there is no such being for the same reasons I am happy to sit here and assume there is no invisible flying purple people eater sitting behind my chair ... it's not an irrational position to take.

And you have demonstrated that you will not accept ANYTHING as evidence for God. I ask you AGAIN, because I need to make this point clear: What event would make you believe in God? Remember the chemicals in the brain thing.

So you're saying that even if I wont accept this ultimate arbiter as real, even though you have no evidence for that ultimate arbiter, even thought there is copious evidence that morality is flexible that I am dependent on this ultimate arbiter anyway? And that because of that I'm a sinner?

No, it was the last part of your sentence that I found especially useful. The concept of submission as imprisonment. That is the ultimate reason for a lot of things which I'm sure we'll discuss in the future.

That is heavily disputed. Apologeticists argue that such acts are illogical outworkings of religion (especially Christianity) whereas the atrocities committed by atheists are logical outworkings of the system based on disbelief.

I see ... so atheists are responsible for all the religious wars that have wracked this world over the millennia? Excuse me but ... BULLSH***!!!!!

I didn't say that. What I am saying is that religious people (Christians at least) who commit crimes in the name of Christianity aren't doing so out of the logic that they derive from Christian teachings but from their own corruption. Atheists...not so much. They don't even have to defend themselves from an atheistic perspective because ultimately they make the system of value and therefore what they are doing is completely right.

No ... what you did was use the No True Scotsman fallacy.

I neither known nor greatly care what Stalin's personal religious views were (though I understood he was Christian), the fact is that that Communist Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church cooperated (that is to say they USED EACH OTHER) for periods lasting well over a decade (it was politically convenient for both parties).

Exactly, but that is not a logical outworking of Christianity (look it up, Stalin fled his religious views). Again, it is not a No True Scotsman fallacy because the concept of "a true scotsman" doesn't have a definition. The concept of a Christian does. For instance, let me put this in terms you will understand. If I said: Scientists are ignorant...you ask me how come and I reply: because I was listening to a Creation Scientist and he was just wrong on so many things and wouldn't listen to reasoning. You then reply that a creation scientist isn't a true scientist. I pull the "No True Scotsman fallacy" on you and what are you left with? By your logic we will have to view scientists as ignorant. But I would disagree, because we have a definition for what makes a scientist just as there is a definition for what makes a Christian. Now do you understand?

Again, I'm not staking my ideological claim on "Christians" and "the church" but on Jesus and the Bible. There is a HUGE difference.

The one that implicitly says it's OK to wipe entire civilisations (and almost an entire race) out?

AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN...PLEASE open a new thread or better yet send me a PM about this subject specifically because I believe your insinuations are incorrect and I would like to point out the fundamental flaws therein.

No, deductive evidence is rarely (if ever) proof ... it can lead to certain hypotheses which then require evidence (inductively reasoned support)

I have a challenge for you, go look at the middle parts of a geometrical proof and try to claim what you just claimed once more.

Demonstrate this please.

Okay first understand that this is deductive reasoning:
1. Every X has the characteristic Y.
2. This thing is X.
3. Therefore, this thing has the characteristic Y.

Here is a geometrical proof


Given:
Segment AD bisects segment BC.
Segment BC bisects segment AD.
Prove:
Triangles ABM and DCM are congruent.



Look at the middle steps.

You originally asked, first, "What vantage point was he philosophizing from if atheism isn't a philosophy?" then "Give me 3 possible vantage points that the atheist philosopher Nietzsche could have been philosophizing from (I can only come up with 1 so if you want to stick with the 1 I have come to then we can proceed from there)" which are not questions I can answer. The man was a philosopher and you appear to be implicitly claiming that something he said was simple, that it can be understood by someone who not only is not a philosopher but has no real interest in philosophy. I'm sorry but I disagree and I decline to answer the question because I have no understanding whosoever of what Nietzsche was arguing.

If, however, you wish to ask me a question that I do have sufficient experience and/or knowledge of to answer then go for it:)

p.s. repeatedly asking me a question that I make no bones about not being able to answer is not only neither big nor clever but actually strikes me as rather deviousness and implies you wish to win at any cost (but that's just my opinion).

You don't want to search for the answer to the question? When I hit something I don't know I research it. I thought it was the same for you.

Why? Your bible CLEARLY supports the concept of genocide, it is CLEARLY anti-Semitic in its core teachings (the Jews are "Christ Killers") ... of course it depends upon your interpretation but I have to ask exactly what is "clearly" illogical about yet another anti-Semitic pogrom?

And other people killed the Jews. The Bible tells us that all peoples are fallen. The Jews were God's people and they still crucified Christ which means that there was no one exempt from that sentiment. Please show me in the New Testament where it says to kill the Jews. In fact there was a debate about only reaching out to the Jews. Remember that the Good News was preached first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles.

Yes and they include genocide, slavery, murder, child sacrifice and the killing of homosexuals just to mention a few.

Oh, and the 10 commandments (which I suspect you are basing your "principles" on) are at best simplistic, arguably wrong.

Kyu

LOL... I find this quite humorous. "There is no such thing as a moral code that carries through time" and then "the Bible was wrong on morality." Please make up your mind.

[Zarathustra]

What I am saying is that religious people (Christians at least) who commit crimes in the name of Christianity aren't doing so out of the logic that they derive from Christian teachings but from their own corruption. Atheists...not so much.

:brick:    ... you mean like the crusades? That wasn't derived from christian teachings??? Or the Inquisuition... have you any idea how they arrived at their moral stance?
Can you give but one genuine example of anyone who has comitted crimes "in the name of atheism"? Please ... just one example....? And I don't mean where you just claim it, but for instance a quote or doctrine, where it is clearly stated! I'm quite sure you won't even be able to supply us with so much as one, which (among other things) makes your claim so absurd!!
Even if you do succeed finding one I'll post ten examples for each of yours where crimes on mankind is committed derived from christian teachings and in the name of "God"!

What really baffles me is this: Why even try to argue something that is obviously both historically (and presently with Bush) incorrect? What do you think, you gain from lying? Isn't it "unchristian" to lie?

You originally asked, first, "What vantage point was he philosophizing from if atheism isn't a philosophy?" then "Give me 3 possible vantage points that the atheist philosopher Nietzsche could have been philosophizing from (I can only come up with 1 so if you want to stick with the 1 I have come to then we can proceed from there)" which are not questions I can answer. The man was a philosopher and you appear to be implicitly claiming that something he said was simple, that it can be understood by someone who not only is not a philosopher but has no real interest in philosophy. I'm sorry but I disagree and I decline to answer the question because I have no understanding whosoever of what Nietzsche was arguing.

If, however, you wish to ask me a question that I do have sufficient experience and/or knowledge of to answer then go for it:)

p.s. repeatedly asking me a question that I make no bones about not being able to answer is not only neither big nor clever but actually strikes me as rather deviousness and implies you wish to win at any cost (but that's just my opinion).

You don't want to search for the answer to the question? When I hit something I don't know I research it. I thought it was the same for you.

I'll repeat my statement from the post above, since you -obviously-haven't read it: Your research on Nietzsche is very poor. It appears VERY devious indeed, that you keep repeating your flawed question, to Kyu...