Alphabet Argument

[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.

Christianity has a better response.

I bet I'd disagree but go on, hit me with it anyway.

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?

1. Yes it is, it is a reason to treat others as you would have them treat you.
2. Fair point but I had assumed you understood I meant by today's morality ... let me put it more correctly. There is much that is beautiful and worthwhile in the bible but there is also much that is vile, appalling and many other things besides which, although it may well have accorded with morality at that time, does not accord with it today therefore the bible is not an appropriate book to act as a moral guide today.

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.

I didn't kick him out but I imagine it was because we, as a group, found his view repugnant (evaluated against current day social morality).

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.

And I repeat I have already told you what I want but ultimately it's YOU making the unsupported claim, the EXTRAORDINARY claim, therefore it is YOU that has to provide adequate and validatable evidence for your tribal chieftain god.

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.

Submission of the intellect to another for no rational reason is intellectual imprisonment IMO.

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.

So, as I said before, the No True Scotsman fallacy.

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?

Stalin was a Christian at one point and may well have been an atheist (although there is no specific evidence for that) by virtue of fleeing the priesthood but is antagonism against the Jews is fairly likely to have been religiously inspired, his regime DID cooperate with the Orthodox Russian Church and the guy was  a tyrant who murdered millions.

No, saying that a creation scientist is not a scientist has nothing at all to do with NTS because creation scientists are mostly untrained non-scientific, non qualified (by which I mean with a full & properly acquired PhD in a scientific disciple) who don't publish in peer-reviewed journals of science and believe it is entirely correct to proceed from a teleological standpoint and only accept that evidence which supports the POV they were initially proposing, twist the rest and so on ... IOW it is entirely correct to say that "creation scientists" are not scientists because they do not use the scientific method. In fact "creation science" is an oxymoron.

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.

As far as I can tell that point was entirely relevant. I'm sorry but it is personal policy never to debate theists in private.  

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.

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.

First of all this is math, I am talking science (I was clearly talking about explaining the universe we live in, the real world) but yes that does involve deductive reasoning and within the abstract world of math it is useful.

The point I am getting at can be demonstrated by the following (rather silly) idea:

If we state ‘all tables have four legs’ and then state that ‘this is a table’ we can deduce that ‘this has four legs’.  The reason I chose that example is because it happens to be patently untrue, the original assertion is false but if it were true then the conclusion would be true.  The conclusion is valid because it is logical but it’s only true if both the reasoning is valid and the assertions are true.

Inductive reasoning is, essentially, statistics.  So if we sample 1000 people and discover that they are all mammalian we can assert inductively that all people are mammalian.  This is measurable to statistical levels of significance and is how scientific tests are measured; after all we can’t actually sample everybody.

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.

Let me try and get this through to you another way ... I am not a mathematician, I understand basic math OK but take anywhere near advanced and I'm hopelessly lost. Would you expect me to be able to intelligently comment on Einstein's relativity equations? Of course you wouldn't and I make no pretence at being able to. I also make no pretence at being a philosopher so either ask someone else or ask a different question.

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.

I never said it said that in the NT but the bible clearly portrays the Jews as Christ Killers and can therefore be considered anti-Semitic plus, as I have repeatedly stated, it clearly shows that genocide is an acceptable method of achieving a given aim.

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.

Actually what I said was that the bible was clearly immoral and (above, this post) explained that I meant by today's standards so in actual fact there is no conflict at all ... so lots of laughs back at ya

Kyu

[Titan]

Christianity has a better response.

I bet I'd disagree but go on, hit me with it anyway.

The completely sacrificial love of the parent in a small way gives us a glimmer of the massive love of God. That is why we can explain even the most foolish evolutionary acts of sacrifice.

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?

1. Yes it is, it is a reason to treat others as you would have them treat you.
2. Fair point but I had assumed you understood I meant by today's morality ... let me put it more correctly. There is much that is beautiful and worthwhile in the bible but there is also much that is vile, appalling and many other things besides which, although it may well have accorded with morality at that time, does not accord with it today therefore the bible is not an appropriate book to act as a moral guide today.

1. That only follows if you don't think you can get away with it. That isn't an ethical point it is a utilitarianism. People only have value to you as long as they can help or hurt you. Everyone else is not worth a breath.
2. You realize that people today still accept the Bible's teaching (if you are going to reference genocide you had better put up another forum because I would infinitely prefer to discuss the concept of genocide and slavery in the Bible in a separate area).

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.

I didn't kick him out but I imagine it was because we, as a group, found his view repugnant (evaluated against current day social morality).

So you wouldn't hold anything against a Christian majority if they wanted all atheists to be killed or kicked out?

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.

And I repeat I have already told you what I want but ultimately it's YOU making the unsupported claim, the EXTRAORDINARY claim, therefore it is YOU that has to provide adequate and validatable evidence for your tribal chieftain god.

But there is no such thing for you. So it is pointless to give evidence because even if it was an act of God you would reject it.

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.

So, as I said before, the No True Scotsman fallacy.

ARG! Please listen to the difference!

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?

Stalin was a Christian at one point and may well have been an atheist (although there is no specific evidence for that) by virtue of fleeing the priesthood but is antagonism against the Jews is fairly likely to have been religiously inspired, his regime DID cooperate with the Orthodox Russian Church and the guy was  a tyrant who murdered millions.

No, saying that a creation scientist is not a scientist has nothing at all to do with NTS because creation scientists are mostly untrained non-scientific, non qualified (by which I mean with a full & properly acquired PhD in a scientific disciple) who don't publish in peer-reviewed journals of science and believe it is entirely correct to proceed from a teleological standpoint and only accept that evidence which supports the POV they were initially proposing, twist the rest and so on ... IOW it is entirely correct to say that "creation scientists" are not scientists because they do not use the scientific method. In fact "creation science" is an oxymoron.

No True Scotsmen on the scientist...unless you want to say that there is a set definition of what a scientist is...but then your own argument would fall apart.

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.

As far as I can tell that point was entirely relevant. I'm sorry but it is personal policy never to debate theists in private.  

Why not?

First of all this is math, I am talking science (I was clearly talking about explaining the universe we live in, the real world) but yes that does involve deductive reasoning and within the abstract world of math it is useful.

Okay, how about this: all healthy dogs have 78 chromosomes, this dog is healthy, therefore this dog has 78 chromosomes. You use empirical data to make rational scientific conclusions on a more practical basis using deductive reasoning.

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.

Let me try and get this through to you another way ... I am not a mathematician, I understand basic math OK but take anywhere near advanced and I'm hopelessly lost. Would you expect me to be able to intelligently comment on Einstein's relativity equations? Of course you wouldn't and I make no pretence at being able to. I also make no pretence at being a philosopher so either ask someone else or ask a different question.

That is a false analogy because philosophy is something we HAVE to deal with, we have to have a philosophy. We don't have to have an understanding of Einstein's relativity equation.

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.

I never said it said that in the NT but the bible clearly portrays the Jews as Christ Killers and can therefore be considered anti-Semitic plus, as I have repeatedly stated, it clearly shows that genocide is an acceptable method of achieving a given aim.

Okay, my text book said that the Germans killed the Jews in World War II, therefore my text book is racist against Germans...poor logic Kyu.

Kyu, I have explained the difference between the True Scotsman logical fallacy and my distinction between true Christians and true Christian actions which you continually ignore, please refrain from doing that because I'm tired of constantly explaining why you are wrong on the subject and having you ignore it.

Zarathustra

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?

Please explain using the Bible.

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!!

It's from a stance of GodLESSness not atheism. They don't go out and say "I shall kill for atheism." No, they kill because they don't believe it is wrong and/or they don't believe they will be punished for it. Both logical outworkings from atheistic philosophy.

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"

Let us begin then. In fact, I won't even post one, I'll let you post 3 examples and the Bible verses that agree that the action is right.

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?

LOL, I don't believe Bush is perfect, I don't even believe he is right on many things. Besides, again, saying you are a Christian doesn't mean you are a Christian. We must delve into what a Christian is...which you guys seem to not want to discuss.

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...

I continue to ask because it is a question we must address in our lives. It isn't some unrelated question, that doesn't affect us or that we don't have to know. This is stuff that we must deal with.

[Zarathustra]

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?

Please explain using the Bible.

I can do much better than that. I can give you the then Pope and his high council's explanation - and yes: Moral justification - for these events. Where they are definately quoting and using the bible.
I know of one christian that lost his faith after reading that, are you up for it? But maybe their bible-knowledge was inadequate as well?

It's from a stance of GodLESSness not atheism. They don't go out and say "I shall kill for atheism." No, they kill because they don't believe it is wrong and/or they don't believe they will be punished for it. Both logical outworkings from atheistic philosophy.

First of all: Atheism is godLESSness!! No more, no less.   But you're contradicting yourself: What you stated earlier in this thread was that they killed "in the name of atheism", now you reduce it to a "logical outworking from atheistic philosophy"..... By christian "logic" perhaps...still that's NOT what you, and so many before you claimed. Do you still consider the claim valid? Then answer this:
How is it a logical outworking from "atheistic philosophy"? Have you EVER actually read any atheist philosopher's workings on ethics? I highly doubt it, considering your claim. The claim is so much begging the question,and directly false, that I am outraged! Next time please substantiate your otherwise empty statements. Show me the logic! Show me the text!

I won't even post one

I knew that in advance. Because you can't. You were the one making the claim originally! Why not back it up???

saying you are a Christian doesn't mean you are a Christian. We must delve into what a Christian is...which you guys seem to not want to discuss.

Oh, I really do!! Especially who has the right to define that, given the imprecise nature of the bible. What gives you authority on who is a christian and who isn't, over lets say Bush or Ratzinger or Falwell or myself for that matter? I think this should be another thread though, so we don't stray. I'll gladly participate, and I know my christian mom will be interested in whether she is a christian or not, according to your definition.

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...

I continue to ask because it is a question we must address in our lives. It isn't some unrelated question, that doesn't affect us or that we don't have to know. This is stuff that we must deal with.

Let me get this straight: We must all deal with which "vantage point" Nietzsche is "philosophizing" from. THAT is a question we must all adress in our lives'? Hmmm, I think it is indeed a problem that most peoples' knowledge of Nietzsche is that superficial then...

[Kyuuketsuki]

The completely sacrificial love of the parent in a small way gives us a glimmer of the massive love of God. That is why we can explain even the most foolish evolutionary acts of sacrifice.

In your mind only and assumptively relying on the as yet unproven existence of deity.

1. That only follows if you don't think you can get away with it. That isn't an ethical point it is a utilitarianism. People only have value to you as long as they can help or hurt you. Everyone else is not worth a breath.
2. You realize that people today still accept the Bible's teaching (if you are going to reference genocide you had better put up another forum because I would infinitely prefer to discuss the concept of genocide and slavery in the Bible in a separate area).

Again ... only in your mind! To me it is entirely rational. What's more, quite apart from hundred's of millions of atheists worldwide who have no issue with morality and good behaviour in a godless world, it's worth pointing out that there are people, communities that grow up in complete ignorance of your god or any other and have absolutely no problems relating to each other in thoroughly decent fashions and decided when other's actions are right and wrong ... the only added ingredient for you is your assumptive god so it's up to you to prove it exists.

Good for you, if you think it deserves another thread, do it.

So you wouldn't hold anything against a Christian majority if they wanted all atheists to be killed or kicked out?

Don't be stupid, of course I would because I'm not a fucking Nazi and nor are my family or friends!

But there is no such thing for you. So it is pointless to give evidence because even if it was an act of God you would reject it.

I absolutely accept that I would be resistant because the idea of a god makes no logical or reasonable sense to me but I would not be absolutely so ... now I have told you what I want as evidence, can you arrange it?

So, as I said before, the No True Scotsman fallacy.

ARG! Please listen to the difference!

I don't accept your claimed difference as valid.

No, saying that a creation scientist is not a scientist has nothing at all to do with NTS because creation scientists are mostly untrained non-scientific, non qualified (by which I mean with a full & properly acquired PhD in a scientific disciple) who don't publish in peer-reviewed journals of science and believe it is entirely correct to proceed from a teleological standpoint and only accept that evidence which supports the POV they were initially proposing, twist the rest and so on ... IOW it is entirely correct to say that "creation scientists" are not scientists because they do not use the scientific method. In fact "creation science" is an oxymoron.

No True Scotsmen on the scientist...unless you want to say that there is a set definition of what a scientist is...but then your own argument would fall apart.

Nope ... you are wrong for reasons already explained. And yes, I would say there is a reasonable definition for a scientist ... a scientist would be someone who practices the scientific method and creation scientists simply do not.  Anyone else claiming to be a scientist has misappropriated the term.

As far as I can tell that point was entirely relevant. I'm sorry but it is personal policy never to debate theists in private.  

Why not?

Because every single time I have gone to a theist URL claimed to answer all my (or very specific) questions I have been met with immense tomes of utter bullshit ... it's not only disappointing and unsurprising but a complete waste of time & effort on my part. So, given that I write all my own pieces, I now expect my opponents to do so. It is not negotiable. I have, BTW, cut you some slack because I did visit some of your links (most recently the audio download link for some theist philosopher, Ravi someone or other?).

Okay, how about this: all healthy dogs have 78 chromosomes, this dog is healthy, therefore this dog has 78 chromosomes. You use empirical data to make rational scientific conclusions on a more practical basis using deductive reasoning.

No (although that is deductive) it's assumed (deduced if you wish but it's still an assumption) based on inductive reasoning i.e. if it looks like a dog, walks like a dog and acts like a dog and dogs are known to have 78 chromosomes (do they? I have no idea) then the dog is assumed to have 78 chromosomes unless evidence is uncovered that indicate otherwise. That's the way science works.

Let me try and get this through to you another way ... I am not a mathematician, I understand basic math OK but take anywhere near advanced and I'm hopelessly lost. Would you expect me to be able to intelligently comment on Einstein's relativity equations? Of course you wouldn't and I make no pretence at being able to. I also make no pretence at being a philosopher so either ask someone else or ask a different question.

That is a false analogy because philosophy is something we HAVE to deal with, we have to have a philosophy. We don't have to have an understanding of Einstein's relativity equation.

No, that kind of philosophy (the blow sunshine up other's arses kind) is not the kind of philosophy we have to deal with ... I can get through my entire life, including an honours degree in biology without that kind of philosophy. True philosophy is nothing more than seeking knowledge and the best example of that is science, the ultimate (to date) method of seeking knowledge (explanations).

I never said it said that in the NT but the bible clearly portrays the Jews as Christ Killers and can therefore be considered anti-Semitic plus, as I have repeatedly stated, it clearly shows that genocide is an acceptable method of achieving a given aim.

Okay, my text book said that the Germans killed the Jews in World War II, therefore my text book is racist against Germans...poor logic Kyu.

I never said the bible was racist (it probably is), I said it was immoral and there is absolutely no question in my mind that the actions of the Nazi's against the Jews were immoral ... what's the problem?

You know I'm beginning to get the impression that you will defend your bible against all comers no matter what the cost! In other words you lack any form of objectivity when it comes to biblical criticism.

Kyu, I have explained the difference between the True Scotsman logical fallacy and my distinction between true Christians and true Christian actions which you continually ignore, please refrain from doing that because I'm tired of constantly explaining why you are wrong on the subject and having you ignore it.

And I've explained to you why you're wrong which, because all you appear to be doing is claiming that Christians are some kind of special exception (IOW special pleading),  you quite clearly are.

Kyu

[Sophus]

If we are to believe that there is a perfect, supreme being out there he must be able to stand up to each individual argument for his case per se. Otherwise he has no business in proclaiming perfection.

Which, by the way, as far as morals are concerned, the Christian God has none. Ask yourself, why is it you choose to so blatantly ignore what the Bible has to say about slavery, the degrading of women, and other vile orders. I would presume it is because it goes against your moral fiber. Your idol C.S. Lewis owned the thesis demanding that the conscience itself was a clue to the universe and by itself was proof of a creator. A God who placed in us all an equal moral guide, so that surely we would have an undisputed axiom of right and wrong. Why then, is it this same God given guide contradicts that of His own teaching? My somewhat obvious explanation is simply because it was the teachings of man, claiming a divine authority grants them right to particular prejudice beliefs. Forged for justification of evil and selfishness, these convictions have consequently been dumped off on innocent, good natured, God seekers, from generation to generation.

[Titan]

The completely sacrificial love of the parent in a small way gives us a glimmer of the massive love of God. That is why we can explain even the most foolish evolutionary acts of sacrifice.

In your mind only and assumptively relying on the as yet unproven existence of deity.

I know, but I explained it via my beliefs...you were unable to do it via yours, therefore my philosophy holds more water, as it were.

1. That only follows if you don't think you can get away with it. That isn't an ethical point it is a utilitarianism. People only have value to you as long as they can help or hurt you. Everyone else is not worth a breath.
2. You realize that people today still accept the Bible's teaching (if you are going to reference genocide you had better put up another forum because I would infinitely prefer to discuss the concept of genocide and slavery in the Bible in a separate area).

Again ... only in your mind! To me it is entirely rational. What's more, quite apart from hundred's of millions of atheists worldwide who have no issue with morality and good behaviour in a godless world, it's worth pointing out that there are people, communities that grow up in complete ignorance of your god or any other and have absolutely no problems relating to each other in thoroughly decent fashions and decided when other's actions are right and wrong ... the only added ingredient for you is your assumptive god so it's up to you to prove it exists.

Exactly, they relate to each other in such a matter because it is the way that religion influenced their constitutional systems and societal systems. You haven't argued against my point you have simply said "I'm entirely rational." That isn't a legitimate argument, it's a cop-out. Your only evidence that it was rational to be against slavery and genocide was that many atheists despise the two propositions...bandwagon appeal, a logical fallacy. You also failed to answer the question directly, that would be like me answering "how can God allow slavery in the Bible" with "Well, a lot of Christians believe slavery is wrong, therefore it clearly isn't a problem." That isn't an answer, it is dodging the question. Please take a step back and answer how your view is NOT utilitarian.

So you wouldn't hold anything against a Christian majority if they wanted all atheists to be killed or kicked out?

Don't be stupid, of course I would because I'm not a fucking Nazi and nor are my family or friends!

But you yourself admitted that the Nazis were only wrong because they lost. They were completely right in their society and from their moral framework. Besides, you didn't answer my question in a manner that gave me a legitimate point to address. I asked you how you could be against the majority despising and rejecting the philosophies of the minority when you used that reasoning for the booting of whatever that Nazi guy's name was. If theists viewed atheism as detrimental to society, the theists composing the majority of the group at hand, would you believe they would be completely right in their removal of atheists from the population? If not, please give the reasons for such an objective, absolute stance...

But there is no such thing for you. So it is pointless to give evidence because even if it was an act of God you would reject it.

I absolutely accept that I would be resistant because the idea of a god makes no logical or reasonable sense to me but I would not be absolutely so ... now I have told you what I want as evidence, can you arrange it?

I cannot because you already told me that you would not accept anything as evidence for God. Remember, this was a progression from the NDE being explained by chemical imbalances so that even if God came before your eyes and with a booming voice said "I AM REAL" you would wake up the next morning and say to yourself "That was all in my head, or I've gone insane." Even if I laid out the framework for a rational step towards believing in a deity you could (and from what I gather "would") say that it was all in my mind.

So, as I said before, the No True Scotsman fallacy.

ARG! Please listen to the difference!

I don't accept your claimed difference as valid.

Based on what?

No, saying that a creation scientist is not a scientist has nothing at all to do with NTS because creation scientists are mostly untrained non-scientific, non qualified (by which I mean with a full & properly acquired PhD in a scientific disciple) who don't publish in peer-reviewed journals of science and believe it is entirely correct to proceed from a teleological standpoint and only accept that evidence which supports the POV they were initially proposing, twist the rest and so on ... IOW it is entirely correct to say that "creation scientists" are not scientists because they do not use the scientific method. In fact "creation science" is an oxymoron.

No True Scotsmen on the scientist...unless you want to say that there is a set definition of what a scientist is...but then your own argument would fall apart.

Nope ... you are wrong for reasons already explained. And yes, I would say there is a reasonable definition for a scientist ... a scientist would be someone who practices the scientific method and creation scientists simply do not.  Anyone else claiming to be a scientist has misappropriated the term.

*clap clap clap* THANK YOU for finally proving why your own opinion is invalid on the subject. You see, you never once asked me what my definition of a Christian was and how I was to back it up. You simply ASSUMED that your opinion on the matter was right. Which is blatantly untrue. I can give you a solid definition of a Christian and the moral principles that Christians should hold and you should ask me to do such and evaluate my definition OR show me a Christian who followed all of my definitions and still did something immoral.

As far as I can tell that point was entirely relevant. I'm sorry but it is personal policy never to debate theists in private.  

Why not?

Because every single time I have gone to a theist URL claimed to answer all my (or very specific) questions I have been met with immense tomes of utter bullshit ... it's not only disappointing and unsurprising but a complete waste of time & effort on my part. So, given that I write all my own pieces, I now expect my opponents to do so. It is not negotiable. I have, BTW, cut you some slack because I did visit some of your links (most recently the audio download link for some theist philosopher, Ravi someone or other?).

I thank you for visiting the audio for Ravi, I did take that into consideration. But I'm not asking you to go to a website, I'm asking you to debate me one on one in an AIM or MSN chat setting. Would you be willing to do that?

Okay, how about this: all healthy dogs have 78 chromosomes, this dog is healthy, therefore this dog has 78 chromosomes. You use empirical data to make rational scientific conclusions on a more practical basis using deductive reasoning.

No (although that is deductive) it's assumed (deduced if you wish but it's still an assumption) based on inductive reasoning i.e. if it looks like a dog, walks like a dog and acts like a dog and dogs are known to have 78 chromosomes (do they? I have no idea) then the dog is assumed to have 78 chromosomes unless evidence is uncovered that indicate otherwise. That's the way science works.

The beginning step is an inductive point. The following logic is deductive. If you can give data as to why the given are true then you can deduce other things from that.

Let me try and get this through to you another way ... I am not a mathematician, I understand basic math OK but take anywhere near advanced and I'm hopelessly lost. Would you expect me to be able to intelligently comment on Einstein's relativity equations? Of course you wouldn't and I make no pretence at being able to. I also make no pretence at being a philosopher so either ask someone else or ask a different question.

That is a false analogy because philosophy is something we HAVE to deal with, we have to have a philosophy. We don't have to have an understanding of Einstein's relativity equation.

No, that kind of philosophy (the blow sunshine up other's arses kind) is not the kind of philosophy we have to deal with ... I can get through my entire life, including an honours degree in biology without that kind of philosophy. True philosophy is nothing more than seeking knowledge and the best example of that is science, the ultimate (to date) method of seeking knowledge (explanations).

So you have never asked what the meaning of life is, you have never asked what the value of another human being is, you have never asked why you have come to conclusions on principles such as these? THAT is philosophy, I am extraordionarily skeptical that you have avoided dipping your toe in philosophy.

I never said it said that in the NT but the bible clearly portrays the Jews as Christ Killers and can therefore be considered anti-Semitic plus, as I have repeatedly stated, it clearly shows that genocide is an acceptable method of achieving a given aim.

Okay, my text book said that the Germans killed the Jews in World War II, therefore my text book is racist against Germans...poor logic Kyu.

I never said the bible was racist (it probably is), I said it was immoral and there is absolutely no question in my mind that the actions of the Nazi's against the Jews were immoral ... what's the problem?

Wait, you have previously said that the Nazis are only wrong because society has told us such...how then can you be absolutely sure that their actions are wrong, knowing that the vast majority of your beliefs are the result of place you grew up in? The Bible cannot be immoral if it is society that makes morality because all you could say on the subject is that the Bible WAS moral...whether it still is is not a question we can ask because that will eventually change and simply puts a cog in the works of progression.

You know I'm beginning to get the impression that you will defend your bible against all comers no matter what the cost! In other words you lack any form of objectivity when it comes to biblical criticism.

I defend what I believe against all comers but if my opinion is wrong I will concede, I have done so in the past and much of my beliefs are different from what they were 5 years ago. Do not assume someone is biased simply because it gives you an excuse to back out of a debate you are losing.

Kyu, I have explained the difference between the True Scotsman logical fallacy and my distinction between true Christians and true Christian actions which you continually ignore, please refrain from doing that because I'm tired of constantly explaining why you are wrong on the subject and having you ignore it.

And I've explained to you why you're wrong which, because all you appear to be doing is claiming that Christians are some kind of special exception (IOW special pleading),  you quite clearly are.

Special exception to what? I am saying that for any religion you must look at the religious doctrine or religious texts and assess what the logical outworking is. If the actions of the individuals measure up to the text then you can continue with the reason such actions (and the doctrine as a whole) are wrong. If, however, the person's actions run counter to the religious doctrine as perceived through its texts then your point is ungrounded and must be discarded.

[Titan]

If we are to believe that there is a perfect, supreme being out there he must be able to stand up to each individual argument for his case per se. Otherwise he has no business in proclaiming perfection.

Yes, I absolutely agree, that is why I am here debating.

Which, by the way, as far as morals are concerned, the Christian God has none. Ask yourself, why is it you choose to so blatantly ignore what the Bible has to say about slavery, the degrading of women, and other vile orders. I would presume it is because it goes against your moral fiber. Your idol C.S. Lewis owned the thesis demanding that the conscience itself was a clue to the universe and by itself was proof of a creator. A God who placed in us all an equal moral guide, so that surely we would have an undisputed axiom of right and wrong. Why then, is it this same God given guide contradicts that of His own teaching? My somewhat obvious explanation is simply because it was the teachings of man, claiming a divine authority grants them right to particular prejudice beliefs. Forged for justification of evil and selfishness, these convictions have consequently been dumped off on innocent, good natured, God seekers, from generation to generation.

*SIGH*
1. You demonstrated C. S. Lewis point concerning the conscience of man by stating that the actions taken by many men were unjust and that people continually came to the same conclusion concerning those actions year after year.
2. That argument isn't OWNED by C.S. Lewis, it is actually made by Solomon and has stuck around for a long time because it has always been applicable.
3. God does not contradict his own teachings, every point you desire to bring up (please do so one at a time, starting with your strongest ones) I can answer. I have never been nervous going into a debate that an atheist will bring up a point that I cannot answer because they so rarely know the Biblical doctrine well enough to have thought through the answers I have.
4. How is there such a thing as an innocent, good natured person in history? Clearly atheist doctrine tells us that societies create their own morals and therefore those good natured people are only good in as far as they live up to the beliefs of their time.

[Sophus]

Yes, I absolutely agree, that is why I am here debating.

My goodness ladies and gents, he's shooting for the Bibles all-time record for Most Self Contradictions. You said we are to assume A through M and go straight to D. But when A falls apart I say why go further? But sure, N can be disproven too.

*SIGH*
1. You demonstrated C. S. Lewis point concerning the conscience of man by stating that the actions taken by many men were unjust and that people continually came to the same conclusion concerning those actions year after year.
2. That argument isn't OWNED by C.S. Lewis, it is actually made by Solomon and has stuck around for a long time because it has always been applicable.
3. God does not contradict his own teachings, every point you desire to bring up (please do so one at a time, starting with your strongest ones) I can answer. I have never been nervous going into a debate that an atheist will bring up a point that I cannot answer because they so rarely know the Biblical doctrine well enough to have thought through the answers I have.
4. How is there such a thing as an innocent, good natured person in history? Clearly atheist doctrine tells us that societies create their own morals and therefore those good natured people are only good in as far as they live up to the beliefs of their time.

1. Yes. Do I agree with it? In some ways, yes, it as a fairly accurate observation. In other ways, no. It cannot expose the heart of the accused or of the victim. You can do the right the for the wrong reasons and vice versa. Which is why I say the only real sin is a malign heart.
2. So what?
3. Would you like verses that demonstrate otherwise?
4. Atheist doctrine! We have no doctrine. Among us you will find that we do not agree on everything, frankly because atheism is about individualism. We think for ourselves. Furthermore, I have known plenty of innocent, good natured people and I suspect there are more out there. The problem with religion is it sees human nature as evil, encouraging us to judge rather than love. I see human nature as something natural that needs to be understood in order to bring about peace to a society. Let's face it, you're not going to convince every one of a religion anyways. Mankind's religion should be tolerance accompanied by love of diversity.

[Titan]

Yes, I absolutely agree, that is why I am here debating.

My goodness ladies and gents, he's shooting for the Bibles all-time record for Most Self Contradictions. You said we are to assume A through M and go straight to D. But when A falls apart I say why go further? But sure, N can be disproven too.

Ahhh, the audacity of the blind! I said that in order to answer contradictions at N we must allow the defender to assume A through M. If the answer is correct at N then the theory is not not true, if all answers are false and the point is unanswerable then the theory is false as a whole and A need not be demonstrated. However, I do not argue that because N is true A must be true. Nor do I support the claim that A falls apart. But let us proceed.

*SIGH*
1. You demonstrated C. S. Lewis point concerning the conscience of man by stating that the actions taken by many men were unjust and that people continually came to the same conclusion concerning those actions year after year.
2. That argument isn't OWNED by C.S. Lewis, it is actually made by Solomon and has stuck around for a long time because it has always been applicable.
3. God does not contradict his own teachings, every point you desire to bring up (please do so one at a time, starting with your strongest ones) I can answer. I have never been nervous going into a debate that an atheist will bring up a point that I cannot answer because they so rarely know the Biblical doctrine well enough to have thought through the answers I have.
4. How is there such a thing as an innocent, good natured person in history? Clearly atheist doctrine tells us that societies create their own morals and therefore those good natured people are only good in as far as they live up to the beliefs of their time.

1. Yes. Do I agree with it? In some ways, yes, it as a fairly accurate observation. In other ways, no. It cannot expose the heart of the accused or of the victim. You can do the right the for the wrong reasons and vice versa. Which is why I say the only real sin is a malign heart.
2. So what?
3. Would you like verses that demonstrate otherwise?
4. Atheist doctrine! We have no doctrine. Among us you will find that we do not agree on everything, frankly because atheism is about individualism. We think for ourselves. Furthermore, I have known plenty of innocent, good natured people and I suspect there are more out there. The problem with religion is it sees human nature as evil, encouraging us to judge rather than love. I see human nature as something natural that needs to be understood in order to bring about peace to a society. Let's face it, you're not going to convince every one of a religion anyways. Mankind's religion should be tolerance accompanied by love of diversity.

1. But you have still failed to provide the foundation for such theories. What is "the wrong reason" and why is it wrong? Again, you are not providing the backing for your moral insinuations.
2. I was merely pointing out that you were wrong.
3. Yes, I would like to answer those verses. But please start with your strongest ones (not a whole pile, that just makes the debate stop dead).
4. I need to break this up into points and argue against each point individually...so:
a) I argue, and the atheists here have not been able to fight against this, that there is a logical end point of atheism in that there is only meaning in what the individual designs. There is objective subjectivity in that everyone is their own god.
b) How have you met plenty of innocent, good natured people? How have you not ONLY met innocent, good natured people? If everyone is good in their own eyes how is anyone bad?
c) Christianity is what coined the concept of forgiving and loving the sinner while hating the sin. You borrow your religious ideas from Christianity.
d) Why should mankind tolerate anything? What should they tolerate? For what reasons? What backs those reasons up? What value backs the foundations for those reasons? You have built your morals on vapor and you are not willing to look at the core.

[Sophus]

1. But you have still failed to provide the foundation for such theories. What is "the wrong reason" and why is it wrong? Again, you are not providing the backing for your moral insinuations.
2. I was merely pointing out that you were wrong.
3. Yes, I would like to answer those verses. But please start with your strongest ones (not a whole pile, that just makes the debate stop dead).
4. I need to break this up into points and argue against each point individually...so:
a) I argue, and the atheists here have not been able to fight against this, that there is a logical end point of atheism in that there is only meaning in what the individual designs. There is objective subjectivity in that everyone is their own god.
b) How have you met plenty of innocent, good natured people? How have you not ONLY met innocent, good natured people? If everyone is good in their own eyes how is anyone bad?
c) Christianity is what coined the concept of forgiving and loving the sinner while hating the sin. You borrow your religious ideas from Christianity.
d) Why should mankind tolerate anything? What should they tolerate? For what reasons? What backs those reasons up? What value backs the foundations for those reasons? You have built your morals on vapor and you are not willing to look at the core.

1. Because it should be easy enough to understand. You make no effort at considering a thing. Are you seriously saying that being right is to be valued more than ones heart? To me, that is a disturbed and perverted thought.
2. Lewis's theory differs in that fact that it argues for God's existence while Solomon is making a poetic connection. The Bible never argues God's existence as it knew it would lose. It expects us to jump to the conclusion that he exists.
3. "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." ~Leviticus 18:22

 "You shall not murder." Exodus 20:13

4. a) Against what a doctrine? Do you see us pointing to a book for proof? No, we use our intellect.
b) Fine. You can think everyone is vermin. And I will see them as people.
c) I'm assuming you meant moral views. Just because some of them are in line with Christianity does not mean I borrow it from it. I'm sure Christianity is in line with moral teachings of other faiths but that does not necessarily mean you borrowed it from them.
d)Why should we tolerate anything? Because we'll never have peace if we live in constant judgment. But hey, don't take my word for it. Try pointing your plastic finger at anyone/everyone who differs with you on something and see where it gets you in life. Not only socially in this world but in your mind you will have bitterness abundant.

[Zarathustra]

I advice everyone to stop arguing with Titan about this! He has NO formal knowledge of philosophy whatsoever! This is clear, since he continues to invoke it against you guys. But he is unable to respond to my questions. Yes, he even use a lot of time and effort questioning your assertions afterwards... based on his "philosophical" knowledge:

So you have never asked what the meaning of life is, you have never asked what the value of another human being is, you have never asked why you have come to conclusions on principles such as these? THAT is philosophy, I am extraordionarily skeptical that you have avoided dipping your toe in philosophy.

Is it? Really? According to what defintion? Philosophy is so much more. It's a vast field, including all sorts of questions.

Maybe Titan should be even more skeptical towards himself, since he obviously thinks that "dipping your toe" constitutes formal knowledge.

[Sophus]

I say we all give Zarathustra a round of applause.

[McQ]

I say we all give Zarathustra a round of applause.

 :pop:

[Zarathustra]

My even smarter friend and I take a bow (and thanks for all the fish).