Happy Atheist Forum

Alphabet Argument

Let us assume that the Alphabet represents a religious doctrine. Let us say that A is akin to a question about the reality of what we observe (such as "I think therefore I am" as it extends into reality as a whole). B is a question about whether there is a higher power or not. C concerns the nature of the deity or deities (monotheistic or polytheistic). D concerns the nature of the deities or deity (kind, genial, fearsome, judgmental, fair, evil, etc). This trend continues until the letters around N and O are questions about questions of morality and/or doctrinal contradictions within the specific religion.

Now, in this argument A is necessary for B, B is necessary for C, C is necessary for D and so on, but NOT the other way around. What we observe must be a reality for us to make a judgment on whether there is a God or not, but whether there is a God or not does not mean that what we observe is real. Do you follow?

Furthermore, let us say that you have found a perceived problem with religious concept N, which has an internal contradiction. In order to address N you must assume A - M just to be able to address it fairly. If you establish that N is not a contradiction then you provide concrete evidence that the religious orientation does not self-destruct at point N. However, if point N is false then the concept as a whole must be false. So in the interest of DISPROVING the religion you actually must allow assumptions to be made for a brief moment.

What you get, in this hypothetical situation then is that: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P .... is the alphabet where the bold letters are not self-contradictory but still based on the previous ones. Now, doing this has only allowed us to show that the religious idea doesn't fall apart at N, we STILL must prove that A - M are true. Do you understand?


You use this to it is just that you don't realize it because this SHOULD come second nature when debating.

When I ask you whether atheism can give a reason for morality you are essentially forced to assume that A argument is true in the sense that what we see, hear, smell, touch, and taste are similar to what is real. And that B is false in that there is no God (despite the fact that this has not been established and cannot be proven, I know the responsibility doesn't lie on you, I'm just saying). You continue the assumptions including the establishment that evolution is real (something I believe but which you would normally need to argue for against some fundamentalists). Until you get to N, which is "How do you define morals in atheism." If then we demonstrate that atheism has an adequate answer for the questions supposing that all previous assertions are true then we can continue with the discussion. This is what happened:

Bold are assumptions
A B C D E F G H I J K L M to argue for N

After demonstrating that N is not a problem at all, and that atheism doesn't become a self-defeating argument you get this
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N so that if you prove A - M you can already take N to be true.

Please tell me I don't have to explain this further. This is important if I'm going to be able to answer ANY questions concerning Biblical doctrine and the contradictions many atheists feel are present therein.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages42.fotki.com%2Fv1365%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6145789%2F27792790-vi.jpg&hash=13d14921f036fe85d3ee4220a204d042b6f67838)

...I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist.  

This is fine but the Christian god (a creator deity) relies bears absolutely on A so it is entirely valid to question and/or criticise the validity of that premise.

Kyu

Yes, but keep in mind that so does atheism. You can't exactly argue anything unless you accept that what you perceive is at least in some way associated with reality. The point I am trying to make is that answering a deeper question requires assumptions that aren't going to be proven in that argument. It is just to prove that the supposed contradictions or fallacies aren't real objections. It isn't circular reasoning because we aren't trying to prove B via N we are just trying to show that the argument still holds at N.

Curiosity:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fyourargumentisinvalid.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F06%2Fi_am_the_president_of_asia.jpg&hash=0b193ef152d0faa90e42d475a9f76e784ef649a2)

Quote from: "Titan"Yes, but keep in mind that so does atheism. You can't exactly argue anything unless you accept that what you perceive is at least in some way associated with reality. The point I am trying to make is that answering a deeper question requires assumptions that aren't going to be proven in that argument. It is just to prove that the supposed contradictions or fallacies aren't real objections. It isn't circular reasoning because we aren't trying to prove B via N we are just trying to show that the argument still holds at N.

Atheism makes no claims, atheism isn't a philosophy.

Kyu

Dictionary.com:

aâ‹...theâ‹...ism
â€, â€,/ˈeɪθiˌɪzÉ™m/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation
â€"noun
1.    the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

But you do make the claim that what you perceive is real, albeit that isn't a horrible claim but it is one nonetheless. Secondly, are you an agnostic that leans towards atheism or a full blown atheist?

Quote from: "Titan"Dictionary.com:

aâ‹...theâ‹...ism
â€, â€,/ˈeɪθiˌɪzÉ™m/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation
â€"noun
1.    the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

But you do make the claim that what you perceive is real, albeit that isn't a horrible claim but it is one nonetheless. Secondly, are you an agnostic that leans towards atheism or a full blown atheist?

That definition is wrong. No I am not agnostic, I am atheist.

Kyu

Agnostic atheist means that he is unsure but doesn't believe there is a God. Atheism leans more towards certainty that there is no God.

Touche, President.

This just reminds me of when I was studying S5 Modal Logic and wanted to rip my hair out. The problem many atheists see with using the Bible to argue Biblical doctrine or, indeed, the existence of God, miracles, etc., is that we have no reason to assume the Bible is, in fact, the word of God. It's akin to making claims about Clifford the Big Red Dog's influence on children while not needing to assume that there is, somewhere out there, a giant red dog named Clifford. We see it as a guidebook (albeit bloody, violent, and vile), a collection of stories, suggestions of how to live.

The alphabet argument is essentially a proof using variables instead of steps. If A, then B is possible. If B, then C is possible, so on, ad infinitum (or until you reach the desired claim). The difference comes into it in that, using the example:

QuoteWhen I ask you whether atheism can give a reason for morality you are essentially forced to assume that A argument is true in the sense that what we see, hear, smell, touch, and taste are similar to what is real. And that B is false in that there is no God

...we are essentially using different alphabets. In your alphabet, the B variable is the "God is real" (or whatever variation it was). In our alphabet, B is something different, entirely. Maybe something like, "Humans have a vested, personal interest in reality, as defined in A." Nowhere in our alphabet of proofs, assuming that N is "How do you define morals" in both our respective alphabets, is there mention of a higher power.

We are working with two different rulebooks: ours has no God to prove, whereas the Christian's does. It wouldn't make much sense for every proof to contain every aspect that is not necessary or sufficient for success, hence we leave out God, the Easter Bunny, Beowulf, Superman, Sherlock Holmes, Harry Potter and the Mighty Ducks: they're superfluous.

Simply put, the alphabet of the Christian proof for morality and the alphabet for the atheist proof for morality are different. We can still argue the validity of how we got to the same point (say, N), but it's in ironing out the differences between the ways we got there that make for interesting debate.

And, Titan, if you're going to use a definition, use a good source.  

Quote from: "Oxford English Dictionary"

Code Select Expand

atheism:

   Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).

atheist:
    A. n.

    1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

    2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.

    B. attrib. as adj. Atheistic, impious.

It has nothing to do with doctrine. Some see "disbelief" as something to latch onto as it has that word "belief" in there, but it's no more useful than someone being an atoothfairyist and having disbelief in the tooth fairy is in proving the tooth fairy is real.

I find the tooth fairy and Santa Claus comparisons actually far from similar in that people aren't looking to the vast ends of space and saying to themselves "You know, there HAS to be a tooth fairy." The implications and necessities are far different. The comparison just serves to put a wedge in intellectual debate.

You are right though in that atheists use a different alphabet. I meant to put that but forgot to.

This alphabet argument also serves to demonstrate how those people who answer contradictions and think they've proven that the Bible is true are actually wrong.

Quote from: "Titan"Agnostic atheist means that he is unsure but doesn't believe there is a God. Atheism leans more towards certainty that there is no God.

Nope ... atheism DOES NOT equate to active belief that there is no god, atheism equates to disbelief in claimed deities. Agnosticism is just another form of atheism, in fact I believe the man who coined the term admitted he did so because he did not like the word atheist, atheist has "seniority" (for lack of a better term). If you wish to call my atheism agnosticism go right ahead but not only will you be wrong you will be declaring the vast majority of atheists wrong to call themselves atheist because you will find very, very few atheists who will state with certainty that there is no god (and that includes arch-atheist Richard Dawkins)

Kyu

I don't really get it either. The religious concept already self destructs with the letter B, because it cannot be certain that a higher power exists. Letter C even moves in the fantasy realm, because is is impossible to know what the assumed nature of the unproven deity or deities is. Moving straight to the letter N or O doesn't require the letters B to M to be correct in the first place, because they are merely assumptions, make believe or wishful thinking. The Alphabet Argument doesn't prove anything other than that the religion concept is flawed.

Quote from: "Tom62"The Alphabet Argument doesn't prove anything other than that the religion concept is flawed.

Agreed 100%

Kyu

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

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

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

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

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

What? Please explain...

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: "Titan"

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

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

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

Quote from: "Titan"

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

How? If you truly believe that evidence is what matters then such a claim is quite false.

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

Quote from: "Titan"You can provide evidence that a theistic interpretation of the universe is more plausible than an atheistic interpretation, thus making it the more rational conclusion.

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

Quote from: "Titan"You can then provide evidence that a monotheistic interpretation of theism is more plausible than a polytheistic interpretation, and so on. Evidence can be applied to all of them, logic and deduction are applicable at all points.

Again go on ... I'd genuinely love you to.

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

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

Kyu

Quote from: "Titan"

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

Quote

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

What? Please explain...

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

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QuoteNo one (except the other side) is seriously claiming science knows how life began.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see why.

Kyu

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

Which theists in particular have you listened to?

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

What do you think of Ravi Zacharias?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QuoteI don't see why.

Was Nietzsche a philosopher?

Quote from: "Titan"Which theists in particular have you listened to?

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

QuoteWhat do you think of Ravi Zacharias?

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

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

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

Quote from: "Titan"It was an objective moral stance that turned people from such atrocities.

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

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

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

Quote from: "Titan"Science doesn't require an explanation for everything? How so?

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

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

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

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

Quote from: "Titan"I didn't say atheism was an explanation, I said it didn't provide an explanation.

OK

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

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

Quote from: "Titan"Was Nietzsche a philosopher?

According to Wikipedia yes.

Kyu

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

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

Quote

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

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

Now that would be a real ordeal  :) .

Quote

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

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

Kyuuketsuki

QuoteNothing, haven't heard him, can't find an audio download. I don't have high expectations that his arguments would be any different from those I've heard to date.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why doesn't it lead to that conclusion?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QuoteWhere 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.

QuoteAccording to Wikipedia yes.

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


Tom62

One sec, I accidentally clicked submit too early.

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

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

QuoteNow that would be a real ordeal :) .

Absolutely, where were you wanting to apply it?

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

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

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

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

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

And another atheist refuses to help me understand the refutations.

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

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

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

Yes, so what is your objection again?

Quote from: "LARA"I rationally conclude that the most plausible reality is the one that I perceive.

Quote from: "Titan"Yes, so what is your objection again?

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

So, I give you something funny in return.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages42.fotki.com%2Fv1365%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2FTruckTireOutOfNowhere-vi.gif&hash=93e053e7fc8263bcd17c17be61ab25de5a25f6dd)

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: "Titan"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?

Quote from: "Titan"

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

Why doesn't it lead to that conclusion?

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

QuoteI 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).

 

Quote from: "Titan"

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: "Titan"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?

Quote from: "Titan"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteWhere 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?

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteAccording to Wikipedia yes.

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

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

Quote from: "Titan"You realize that Hitler was a big fan of the atheist Nietzsche ...

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

Kyu

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

You never pass A.

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

LARA

QuoteYou 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.

QuoteSigh, 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.

QuoteNo 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?"

Quote

QuoteBut 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.

Quote

QuoteI 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?

Quote

QuoteAgain, 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.

QuotePascal'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.

QuoteIn 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.

QuoteSo, 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.

Quote

Quote

QuoteWhere 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?

Quote

QuoteWhat 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).

Quote"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

QuotePascal'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!!!!

Titan,

You're aware I've replied?

Kyu

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.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteSigh, 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.

Quote from: "Titan"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 :)

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote"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

QuoteTitan 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.

Kyuuketsuki

QuoteNo 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?

QuoteYou 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.

QuoteIn 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.

QuoteSo 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

QuoteB 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?

QuoteMy 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.

QuoteTitan 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.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteNo 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.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteYou 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.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteIn 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.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote

QuoteWhy 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.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuotePretty 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.

QuoteAs 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.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteSo 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)

Quote from: "Titan"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?

Quote from: "Titan"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

Quote

Quote

QuoteNo 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?

QuoteI 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.

QuoteI 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?

Quote

Quote

QuotePretty 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.

QuoteOn 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.

QuoteSome 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.

Quoteyeah, 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.

QuoteNo, 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.

QuoteAs 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.

QuoteBroadly 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.

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Titan"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.

Quote from: "Titan"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.

Quote from: "Titan"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.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteOn 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!

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteSome 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***!!!!!

Quote from: "Titan"

Quoteyeah, 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).

Quote from: "Titan"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?

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteNo, 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.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteAs 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).

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteBroadly 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?

Quote from: "Titan"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

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?

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteIn 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.

Quote from: "Titan"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?

Quote from: "kyu"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.

Quote from: "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?

Quote from: "Zarathustra"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

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "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:

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"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.

Quote

QuoteBut 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.

Quote

QuoteYou 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?

Quote

QuoteSo 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.

Quote

QuoteNo, 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.

QuoteSo 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.

Quote

QuoteThat 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.

QuoteNo ... 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?

Quote

QuoteAgain, 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.

Quote

Quote

QuoteNo, 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

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.sparknotes.com%2Ffigures%2F9%2F9468de070d794b4c203fe8a51bd73917%2Fsampleproof.gif&hash=52d9a887479a20ef694b3f01a0accbc8110d9350)
Given:
Segment AD bisects segment BC.
Segment BC bisects segment AD.
Prove:
Triangles ABM and DCM are congruent.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.sparknotes.com%2Ffigures%2F9%2F9468de070d794b4c203fe8a51bd73917%2Fsampleproofb.gif&hash=33a0be870f75c834c378eed2a2f89904d0b30948)

Look at the middle steps.

QuoteYou 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.

QuoteWhy? 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.

QuoteYes 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.

Quote from: "Titan"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?

Quote

QuoteYou 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...

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote

QuoteBut 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.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteYes 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.

Quote from: "Titan"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).

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteI'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.

Quote from: "Titan"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.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteI 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.

Quote from: "Titan"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.

Quote from: "Titan"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.  

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteNo, 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

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.sparknotes.com%2Ffigures%2F9%2F9468de070d794b4c203fe8a51bd73917%2Fsampleproof.gif&hash=52d9a887479a20ef694b3f01a0accbc8110d9350)
Given:
Segment AD bisects segment BC.
Segment BC bisects segment AD.
Prove:
Triangles ABM and DCM are congruent.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.sparknotes.com%2Ffigures%2F9%2F9468de070d794b4c203fe8a51bd73917%2Fsampleproofb.gif&hash=33a0be870f75c834c378eed2a2f89904d0b30948)

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.

Quote from: "Titan"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.

Quote from: "Titan"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.

Quote from: "Titan"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

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "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.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteYes 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).

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"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?

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteI'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.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteI 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!

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"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.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"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?

QuoteFirst 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.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"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.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"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

Quoteyou 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.

QuoteCan 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.

QuoteEven 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.

QuoteWhat 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.

QuoteI'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.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quoteyou 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?

QuoteIt'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!

QuoteI 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???

Quotesaying 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.

Quote

QuoteI'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...

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Titan"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.

Quote from: "Titan"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!

Quote from: "Titan"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?

Quote from: "Titan"

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

ARG! Please listen to the difference!

I don't accept your claimed difference as valid.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteNo, 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.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteAs 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?).

Quote from: "Titan"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.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteLet 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).

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteI 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.

Quote from: "Titan"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

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.

Quote

Quote from: "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.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"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.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"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...

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"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.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteSo, 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?

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteNo, 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.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteAs 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?

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"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.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteLet 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.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteI 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.

QuoteYou 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.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"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.

Quote from: "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.

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

QuoteWhich, 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.

Quote from: "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.

Quote*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.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "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.

Quote*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.

Quote1. 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.

Quote from: "Titan"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.

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:

Quote from: "Titan"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.

I say we all give Zarathustra a round of applause.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbp0.blogger.com%2F_nvs2peDPH9Q%2FR-2QiY9cb3I%2FAAAAAAAAACk%2FpSKZvM7fHCo%2Fs400%2F1ApplauseCard.gif&hash=fd90dbffbc09e989016126c84eeb96ebb30eea0f)

Quote from: "Sophus"I say we all give Zarathustra a round of applause.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbp0.blogger.com%2F_nvs2peDPH9Q%2FR-2QiY9cb3I%2FAAAAAAAAACk%2FpSKZvM7fHCo%2Fs400%2F1ApplauseCard.gif&hash=fd90dbffbc09e989016126c84eeb96ebb30eea0f)

 :pop:

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