Author Topic: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread  (Read 6783 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #58 on: July 07, 2012, 12:42:59 AM »
Works fine for me.  I suggest you go to the base site (lightning.nsstc.nasa.gov) and click on "A Lightning Primer" instead.

And in response to your "good/bad" post, no, there does not need to be some objective entity which emits morality to know that some things are good and others bad.  I can say "Hitler was wrong to exterminate millions of Jews" because he was doing so to promote his own personal power and agenda, for example.

So if someone thinks, to held a personal agenda is good, how can you possibly say, that person is wrong ? why should your opinion be above of someone else ?


Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #59 on: July 07, 2012, 12:46:33 AM »
Godexists, understand that not all atheists think morality is subjective. We have at least one atheist here that believes an objective morality exists. As for myself, I'm still undecided (though I'm leaning toward an objective one). But both worldviews make excellent cases for morality and a god is not required for either view.

So what is the the basis for your objective morality, if God does not exist ?

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #60 on: July 07, 2012, 12:54:04 AM »
How do you possibly know what is good, what is bad ?

GE, it's very simple:  Does an action help or harm?  If you wouldn't want something done to you, a member of your family or a close personal friend, don't do it to somebody else.  Are you actually having difficulty understanding that?

Do you eat meat ? killing cows is harmful to cows. Therefore its bad to kill cows. Despite of this , you eat meat. Should you not stop it therefore ?

Quote
See My first point, above.  Would you allow a Hitler to do it to you or someone you loved?  If the answer is "No," then you have determined that the events in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s are morally wrong.

And if i think however, its a good thing, to do it to someone i love. based on what standard can you say , i am wrong ? Is your opinion more worth than mine ? If so, why ?

Quote
Men becoms the ultimate instance of judgement, nothing above him can say, what is objectively right, and wrong.

Correct.

Therefore, there is no good, or bad. There are just diverging opinions on different subjects. If i think, its ok and good to rape, torture, kill, and eat little babies, i have just diverging opinions than others. My opinion is less valid than someone elses, just because its different ?

Quote
Subjective morality works just fine.

It works fine in what sense ?

Quote
Therefore, ultimatively, good, and bad, cannot exist in a atheistic world view.

But, GE, they *do* exist in an atheistic world view!

Sure, anyone can make things up. Atheists behave " as if ", but their world view cannot set a standard of good and wrong.



 

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #61 on: July 07, 2012, 12:58:12 AM »
Wrong you intellectually dishonest pinhead:

oh sure...... lets see what atheists have to take on faith to held their world view as true :

http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/


A Faith Statement might be as follows:
I have complete, non-negotiable FAITH in the following tenets:
·        Faith that the supreme intelligence in the universe is me, embodied in my mind.
·        Faith that the appearances of design are false.
·        Faith that the first life self-assembled from warm chemicals in goo.
·        Faith that the universe is a self-induced, random occurrence.
·        Faith that a “multiverse” that we can’t see is a rationale for a random universe producing life (Anthropic principle is false).
·        Faith that my mind is an assembly of random mutations, with no actual purpose beyond survival of the fittest. (A Meat Machine).  Even so, it is the supreme intelligence in the universe.
·        Faith that the brain and the mind are one thing, inseparable.
·        Faith that there is no intelligence in DNA.
·        Faith that if I can’t sense it, it does not exist. (No metaphysical existence).
·        Faith that empiricism is the one and only true path to all-encompassing Truth and Enlightenment.
·        Faith in Evolution, which is unquestionable; it is non-negotiable truth. See         “Heresy”, below.
·        Faith that, because Evolution is non-negotiable truth, life has no meaning.
·        Faith that after death there are only worms.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3082
  • Darwins +280/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #62 on: July 07, 2012, 01:18:28 AM »
Do you eat meat ? killing cows is harmful to cows. Therefore its bad to kill cows. Despite of this , you eat meat. Should you not stop it therefore ?

GE, I actually spent 10 years as a vegetarian and even though I do eat meat nowadays I try to minimize the amounts.

And I feel compelled to ask:  Do *you* eat meat, GE?  If you do consume a carnivorous diet, how do you justify it?

Quote
And if i think however, its a good thing, to do it to someone i love. based on what standard can you say , i am wrong ?

The objections of your victims and their families are a sufficient standard.  From their POV you would be committing an immoral act.

Quote
Therefore, there is no good, or bad. There are just diverging opinions on different subjects. If i think, its ok and good to rape, torture, kill, and eat little babies, i have just diverging opinions than others. My opinion is less valid than someone elses, just because its different ?

From where you sit you may very well think you're moral, but if you start hurting others you'll still have to face the wrath of the community and whatever laws they may have agreed upon.  When your "opinion" intrudes upon others' desire for peace and safety, expect a reaction.

Quote
{Subjective morality} works fine in what sense ?

The fact that the streets of My city (and many, many others worldwide) are relatively safe for the average person.  When there is trouble, we have civil organizations such as police forces and the judiciary to deal with those who try to disrupt that safety.

Quote
Atheists behave " as if ", but their world view cannot set a standard of good and wrong.

GE, I do have a clearly delineated standard of right and wrong, and I did not get it from your petty, genocidal hissy-fit god.  I got it from My parents, from My classmates, from My teachers, and from My own observations.  If your imaginary friend wants the credit for what I have learned about right and wrong in My over 5 decades on this planet, it can ruddy well come and tell Me to My face.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2781
  • Darwins +80/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #63 on: July 07, 2012, 01:23:17 AM »
oh sure...... lets see what atheists have to take on faith to held their world view as true :

http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/


A Faith Statement might be as follows:
I have complete, non-negotiable FAITH in the following tenets:

There is no such thing as "statement of faith" for an atheists.


Quote
·        Faith that the supreme intelligence in the universe is me, embodied in my mind.

Nobody thinks like this.


Quote
·        Faith that the appearances of design are false.
·        Faith that the first life self-assembled from warm chemicals in goo.
·        Faith that the universe is a self-induced, random occurrence.
·        Faith that a “multiverse” that we can’t see is a rationale for a random universe producing life (Anthropic principle is false).
·   


Strawmen.


Quote
     Faith that my mind is an assembly of random mutations, with no actual purpose beyond survival of the fittest. (A Meat Machine).  Even so, it is the supreme intelligence in the universe.

Again; nobody thinks like this.


Quote
·        Faith that the brain and the mind are one thing, inseparable.
·        Faith that there is no intelligence in DNA.
·        Faith that if I can’t sense it, it does not exist. (No metaphysical existence).
·        Faith that empiricism is the one and only true path to all-encompassing Truth and Enlightenment.

More strawmen.

Quote
·        Faith in Evolution, which is unquestionable; it is non-negotiable truth. See         “Heresy”, below.

Nobody considers evolution to be "unquestionable".  It is something very well supported by evidence (which will only take five seconds to look up on google).



Quote
·        Faith that, because Evolution is non-negotiable truth, life has no meaning.
·        Faith that after death there are only worms.

Once more;  nobody thinks like that.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3082
  • Darwins +280/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #64 on: July 07, 2012, 01:58:07 AM »
(Springy G cranks up the editor to deal with GE's latest outburst of copypasta...)

I have complete, non-negotiable FAITH in the following tenets think the following concepts are considerably more reasonable than Bronze Age goat-herder mythology:
  • Faith that the supreme intelligence in the universe is me, embodied in my mind. has not been identified.
  • Faith that the appearances of design are false sometimes occur in nature, but that it's premature to assume a sentient "designer" when there is no evidence for such a being.
  • Faith that the first life self-assembled from warm chemicals in goo nucleotides aggregated from self-replicating organic molecules over a span of billions of years.
  • Faith that the universe is a self-induced, random occurrence still very much a mystery, but we're working on it.
  • Faith that a “multiverse” that we can’t see is a rationale for a random universe producing life (Anthropic principle is false). that only the planets that are capable of producing life tend to have ontological arguments, as there's no one on the other type of planet capable of discussing such problems.
  • Faith that my mind is an assembly of random mutations, evolved instinctual behaviors and social constructs with no actual objectively demonstrable purpose, but as much subjective, personalized purpose as one desires beyond survival of the fittest. (A Meat Machine).  Even so, it is the supreme intelligence in the universe.
  • Faith that the brain and the mind are one thing, inseparable. the mind is a phenomenon which appears to be wholly dependent on a living, functional physical brain for its existence; hence, the idea of life after death is rather dubious indeed.
  • Faith that there is no credible evidence for an intelligent agent creating DNA, which in itself is just a complex self-replicating molecule with no innate intelligence.
  • Faith that if I can’t sense it, it does not exist. is unwise to assume that it exists.
  • Faith that empiricism is the one and only true a reasonable way to accumulate and test path to all-encompassing Truth and Enlightenment basic knowledge about the way the physical world actually works.
  • Faith in Evolution , which is unquestionable; it is non-negotiable truth. See “Heresy”, below makes much more sense than Dirt-Man and Rib-Woman ca. 4004 BCE in a garden full of Magic Trees and a Talking Snake™ with a Hidden Agenda.
  • Faith that, because Evolution is non-negotiable truth, life has no meaning has a unique, subjective meaning for every individual.
  • Faith that after death there are probably only worms, so it's important to make the most of the life that we have now.

FTFY.  Could someone get all these straw men out of here, please, before it starts a logical conflagration?
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5266
  • Darwins +602/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #65 on: July 07, 2012, 04:04:48 AM »
So if someone thinks, to held a personal agenda is good, how can you possibly say, that person is wrong ? why should your opinion be above of someone else ?
Conceding the discussion about lightning, then?

If someone puts a gun to your head because of a personal agenda, you'd think they were very wrong, correct?  It's just an outgrowth of that, based on empathy.  If your actions would harm them in some definable manner, it's wrong; whether it's the putting a gun to their head and threatening to kill them, or cheating them out of their life savings and leaving them penniless, or beating them up for that matter.  What you do to another person can be used to justify doing something similar to you.  And before you make the obvious objection - no, if you've already done something to them, it doesn't justify them taking matters into their own hands.  That's what the court system is for, to keep people from being at each other's throats when they have problems with each other.

Is it perfect?  No.  But nothing is perfect.  It does, however, work.

So what is the the basis for your objective morality, if God does not exist ?
There doesn't need to be an objective morality.  People who have to live with each other make rules in order to govern their behavior as a group.  That's how we got civilization to begin with.  Then it's a matter of making rules between groups so that the groups can live with each other, etc.  It was never anything more than this; gods are unnecessary to the process if you stop and think about it.

Do you eat meat ? killing cows is harmful to cows. Therefore its bad to kill cows. Despite of this , you eat meat. Should you not stop it therefore ?
This is just silly.  Cows are not people.  There's a rather large difference between how different peoples interact with each other, and how people interact with animals.  So it isn't wrong, in and of itself, to kill a cow and eat its meat; but it would be wrong to kill a cow and eat its meat in front of a Hindu, who do not believe in killing cows, because it might cause a conflict with him or her.

Quote from: Godexists
And if i think however, its a good thing, to do it to someone i love. based on what standard can you say , i am wrong ? Is your opinion more worth than mine ? If so, why ?
If it harms them in some way, then it doesn't matter if you think it's a good thing.  What you do to others can be used to justify things they do to you.

Quote from: Godexists
Therefore, there is no good, or bad. There are just diverging opinions on different subjects. If i think, its ok and good to rape, torture, kill, and eat little babies, i have just diverging opinions than others. My opinion is less valid than someone elses, just because its different ?
If you do in fact "rape, torture, kill, and eat little babies", then you are harming other people (including the babies).  If you do harm to others, it can be used to justify harm done to you.  For example, someone vengefully torturing you to death for the murder of their child.  I think you'd agree that the latter is wrong, and that means the former is as well.  Just work outwards from that.

Quote from: Godexists
Sure, anyone can make things up. Atheists behave " as if ", but their world view cannot set a standard of good and wrong.
Incorrect, as I've demonstrated.  The primary difference between your worldview and an atheist's is that the atheist doesn't believe they have a god standing over them to enforce good behavior.  Thus, they're responsible for their own actions, rather than some god.

oh sure...... lets see what atheists have to take on faith to held their world view as true :
The list you cited isn't an effort to analyze atheism in any way, it's an attempt to demonize atheists as being selfish and egotistical.  And it's a pretty silly one to boot.  Are you really so gullible as to listen to claims like the ones cited on that site that are written by people who probably have never knowingly met an atheist?

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1348
  • Darwins +101/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #66 on: July 07, 2012, 07:46:29 AM »
GE, are you unable to answer my post above?

who is a more "good" person, you, who behaves "good" out of fear of punnishment and hope of reward, or me, who behaves "good" ONLY because it's the right thing to do??

How do you possibly know what is good, what is bad ? Based on your world view, how can there  be set a objective value standard of ethics and morals ? If God does not exist, everything becomes relative and subjective. How can you say, Hitler was wrong, to send millions of jews to death, if he felt that was the right thing to do ? Men becoms the ultimate instance of judgement, nothing above him can say, what is objectively right, and wrong. So if a nation sets a different standard of ethis and values, nobody can say, they are objectively wrong. Therefore, ultimatively, good, and bad, cannot exist in a atheistic world view.

Nice dodge.  I'm not asking you to judge based on MY worldview.  I'm asking YOU:

Who is more "good?"  One who does good based on punishment/reward, or one who does good only becasue it's good?

You keep swinging at the softballs, and dodging/ignoring the questions you don't want to answer.

Let's make this easier.  Let's say that I follow the Judeo-Christian ethic (or the older, more-established "ethic of reciprocity") because it's right.  You follow it because your book told you if you don't you go to hell.  Who is "more good?"
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 07:58:36 AM by Boots »
It's one of the reasons I'm an atheist today.  I decided to take my religion seriously, and that's when it started to fall apart for me.
~jdawg70

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #67 on: July 07, 2012, 08:01:33 AM »
Do you eat meat ? killing cows is harmful to cows. Therefore its bad to kill cows. Despite of this , you eat meat. Should you not stop it therefore ?

GE, I actually spent 10 years as a vegetarian and even though I do eat meat nowadays I try to minimize the amounts.

And I feel compelled to ask:  Do *you* eat meat, GE?  If you do consume a carnivorous diet, how do you justify it?

I do not live according to YOUR moral standard... So i have no problem with eating meat. Btw. accodring to your moral standard, you cannot even kill a moskito. Do you kill moskitos ?
And : why do you think, your life is more worth than the one of a moskito ? How do you set your value system, to detect, which life is more valuable ?

Quote
And if i think however, its a good thing, to do it to someone i love. based on what standard can you say , i am wrong ?

The objections of your victims and their families are a sufficient standard.  From their POV you would be committing an immoral act.

I can held that the objectios of the victims are irrelevant, and worthless. how can someone say my opinion is wrong in regard of this ?

Quote
From where you sit you may very well think you're moral, but if you start hurting others you'll still have to face the wrath of the community and whatever laws they may have agreed upon.

That is the consequence of my different moral value system. But it does not mean, my ethics are worse than of someone else.... its just different. So if i think kill someone is a good thing, that is a opinion, as much worth as of someone else, that thinks the oposit - according to your world view.


Quote
When your "opinion" intrudes upon others' desire for peace and safety, expect a reaction.

Oh sure. Serial killers , that know how not to be catched, don't need to worry....

Quote
{Subjective morality} works fine in what sense ?

The fact that the streets of My city (and many, many others worldwide) are relatively safe for the average person.  When there is trouble, we have civil organizations such as police forces and the judiciary to deal with those who try to disrupt that safety.[/quote]

What does your answer have to do in regard of the difference of subjective x objective morality ??

Quote

GE, I do have a clearly delineated standard of right and wrong

I bet you do. Hitler did as well......


Quote
, and I did not get it from your petty, genocidal hissy-fit god.

your little rant has nothing to do with the matter we are writing about.


Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #68 on: July 07, 2012, 08:19:41 AM »
Conceding the discussion about lightning, then?

Your website is just the opinion of many others..... nobody knows for sure. its all guesswork......

Quote
If someone puts a gun to your head because of a personal agenda, you'd think they were very wrong, correct?  It's just an outgrowth of that, based on empathy.  If your actions would harm them in some definable manner, it's wrong; whether it's the putting a gun to their head and threatening to kill them, or cheating them out of their life savings and leaving them penniless, or beating them up for that matter.  What you do to another person can be used to justify doing something similar to you.  And before you make the obvious objection - no, if you've already done something to them, it doesn't justify them taking matters into their own hands.  That's what the court system is for, to keep people from being at each other's throats when they have problems with each other.

it seems you've not grasped my objection. If i think to put a gun on someone's head, and shoot the guy, and think, that was the best thing i could have done in my life, and that it needs perfectly my personal moral standard, who can say, i am wrong , and based on what ??

Quote
There doesn't need to be an objective morality.  People who have to live with each other make rules in order to govern their behavior as a group.  That's how we got civilization to begin with.  Then it's a matter of making rules between groups so that the groups can live with each other, etc.  It was never anything more than this; gods are unnecessary to the process if you stop and think about it.

But you still think, Hitler got it wrong , made very bad things, right ? Based on what you said above however, you should agree that Hitler and the Germans did it right, since they acted  as a group with a common sense of how they should act......

Do you eat meat ? killing cows is harmful to cows. Therefore its bad to kill cows. Despite of this , you eat meat. Should you not stop it therefore ?
This is just silly.  Cows are not people.

So how do you know that the life of animals is less worth than of humans ? are they not result same as humans, of mindless natural forces ?


Quote
There's a rather large difference between how different peoples interact with each other, and how people interact with animals.

Sure there is. But why should there be made a distinction ? Isnt it harmful for animals, to kill them ? Why not kill humans, but animals ?


 
Quote
So it isn't wrong, in and of itself, to kill a cow and eat its meat; but it would be wrong to kill a cow and eat its meat in front of a Hindu, who do not believe in killing cows, because it might cause a conflict with him or her.

If i think it is a good thing to cause a conflict to a Hindu, how could you say i am wrong ? My moral and ethic system is just different, and tells me that hindus are worthless. So based on what could you say, i am wrong ?

Quote from: Godexists
If it harms them in some way, then it doesn't matter if you think it's a good thing.  What you do to others can be used to justify things they do to you.

Sure. So what ? That still doesnt make my different moral and ethics be wrong. They are just different.

Quote from: Godexists
If you do in fact "rape, torture, kill, and eat little babies", then you are harming other people (including the babies).  If you do harm to others, it can be used to justify harm done to you.  For example, someone vengefully torturing you to death for the murder of their child.  I think you'd agree that the latter is wrong, and that means the former is as well.  Just work outwards from that.

If i risk to be harmed , that is just my problem. You have still not shown me, that my moral perception is less valid, better or worse, than yours.  If naturalism is true, no good or bad exists. Everything becomes relative. Total Nihilism, senselessness, and emptyness is the end of the road for atheism  thought trough.

Quote from: Godexists
Incorrect, as I've demonstrated.

No, you have not, as demonstrated.


 
Quote
The primary difference between your worldview and an atheist's is that the atheist doesn't believe they have a god standing over them to enforce good behavior.

You have not yet shown how to define good behavior. If someone sets the standard that kill little babies is a good behavior, how possibly can you say that moral standard is wrong ? You cannot.


  Thus, they're responsible for their own actions, rather than some god.

oh sure...... lets see what atheists have to take on faith to held their world view as true :
  Are you really so gullible as to listen to claims like the ones cited on that site that are written by people who probably have never knowingly met an atheist?
[/quote]

Well, could you point where the list got it wrong , and where you differe in opinion ?

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #69 on: July 07, 2012, 08:22:31 AM »


Nice dodge.  I'm not asking you to judge based on MY worldview.  I'm asking YOU:

Who is more "good?"  One who does good based on punishment/reward, or one who does good only becasue it's good?


I ask you again : how can you know what is objectively good, if naturalism is true ?

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #70 on: July 07, 2012, 08:51:13 AM »
Nice dodge.  I'm not asking you to judge based on MY worldview.  I'm asking YOU:

Who is more "good?"  One who does good based on punishment/reward, or one who does good only becasue it's good?


I ask you again : how can you know what is objectively good, if naturalism is true ?

GE, as Boots has pointed out, you are dodging.  If you don't want to answer his question, that's one thing, but quoting it and ignoring it is another.  Kindly refrain from such behavior.  Thank you.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #71 on: July 07, 2012, 08:55:27 AM »
GE, are you unable to answer my post above?

who is a more "good" person, you, who behaves "good" out of fear of punnishment and hope of reward, or me, who behaves "good" ONLY because it's the right thing to do??

How do you possibly know what is good, what is bad ? Based on your world view, how can there  be set a objective value standard of ethics and morals ? If God does not exist, everything becomes relative and subjective. How can you say, Hitler was wrong, to send millions of jews to death, if he felt that was the right thing to do ? Men becoms the ultimate instance of judgement, nothing above him can say, what is objectively right, and wrong. So if a nation sets a different standard of ethis and values, nobody can say, they are objectively wrong. Therefore, ultimatively, good, and bad, cannot exist in a atheistic world view.

Boots asked you a question. Your options are:

1) Tell him you do not want to answer.
2) Answer him.

You are not arguing with me and you are not responding to this post or discussing it's content, you are simply doing one of the above.
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1348
  • Darwins +101/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #72 on: July 07, 2012, 09:59:00 AM »


Nice dodge.  I'm not asking you to judge based on MY worldview.  I'm asking YOU:

Who is more "good?"  One who does good based on punishment/reward, or one who does good only becasue it's good?


I ask you again : how can you know what is objectively good, if naturalism is true ?

OK then, if you keep wanting to dodge, I'll aim more carefully.

Which is "more good" in YOUR OPINION?
It's one of the reasons I'm an atheist today.  I decided to take my religion seriously, and that's when it started to fall apart for me.
~jdawg70

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #73 on: July 07, 2012, 10:16:42 AM »
Who is more "good?"  One who does good based on punishment/reward, or one who does good only becasue it's good?
Which is "more good" in YOUR OPINION?

Your question is irrelevant. You believe that the christian moral basis is fear. But its not. Its love.

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. 1 Jn 4:16b-18

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11220
  • Darwins +296/-38
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #74 on: July 07, 2012, 10:21:35 AM »
<snip>

So those who drown in oxytocin and other chemicals live with Allah? So Allah only exists in the brain? Well, at least you have one of those right...

That's still a dodge, by the way. And wrong. The constant threat of hell and/or the selfish reward of heaven is what keeps theists in line.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline on:bread:alone

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
  • Darwins +8/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #75 on: July 07, 2012, 10:21:42 AM »
Not only is it not a joke, but that little gem is found in the Bob Jones University textbook. It's a lot like the Accellerated Christian Education books, albeit a bit older. It's still in circulation in some private schools and used for homeschooling.

if anyone needs me, i'll be hiding in the shower hugging my knees.
i'm a street-walking cheetah with a heart full of napalm.

please, check out www.letsgetrational.com

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5266
  • Darwins +602/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #76 on: July 07, 2012, 11:47:51 AM »
Your website is just the opinion of many others..... nobody knows for sure. its all guesswork......
You don't get to decide that someone else's evidence is irrelevant just because it disagrees with what you believe.  In other words, if you aren't willing to contest what that site says, you're conceding the discussion about lightning.

Quote from: Godexists
it seems you've not grasped my objection. If i think to put a gun on someone's head, and shoot the guy, and think, that was the best thing i could have done in my life, and that it needs perfectly my personal moral standard, who can say, i am wrong , and based on what ??
I grasp it just fine.  However, your objection is irrelevant to what I was actually saying.  To keep it very simple so you have no trouble understanding, if someone else were to shoot you in the head, you would certainly consider it wrong for them to do so.  Basic morality is about considering the impact of your actions on another; if you're the kind of person who only considers how something affects you, then you don't have morality even if you believe in an objective morality passed down from some god.

Quote from: Godexists
But you still think, Hitler got it wrong , made very bad things, right ? Based on what you said above however, you should agree that Hitler and the Germans did it right, since they acted  as a group with a common sense of how they should act......
Not in the slightest.  What you are failing to understand is that Hitler's actions did tremendous harm to a lot of people, and he did them because of personal motives (he hated Jews and used them as an excuse to gain and hold power).  The fact that non-Jew Germans agreed with him is irrelevant in this case, because they were fooled into believing Hitler's lies, and many of them simply did not know the full scope of his plans.  So no, I won't agree that Hitler and the Germans did right, and your attitude that I should clearly shows that you really don't understand how morality works.

Quote from: Godexists
So how do you know that the life of animals is less worth than of humans ? are they not result same as humans, of mindless natural forces ?
The fact that cows and other food animals came from the same evolutionary process as humans did means nothing in and of itself.  Modern diseases developed through that same evolutionary process, and I don't consider it a problem to treat them (which involves killing the disease microorganisms).  As for the rest, I reiterate, cows aren't people.  If they were, it would be different, but as it stands, it's a little silly to worry about them when we specifically grow them for food.

Quote from: Godexists
Sure there is. But why should there be made a distinction ? Isnt it harmful for animals, to kill them ? Why not kill humans, but animals ?
Because humans are people.  They have culture, civilization.  We can communicate with each other in a meaningful fashion.  We can't communicate with cows, or virtually any other animals for that matter.  There's a case to be made for intelligent animals (for example, tool-users), and I would argue that they should not be treated as mere animals, but cows certainly don't qualify as such.

Quote from: Godexists
If i think it is a good thing to cause a conflict to a Hindu, how could you say i am wrong ? My moral and ethic system is just different, and tells me that hindus are worthless. So based on what could you say, i am wrong ?
Given that you would almost certainly object strongly to someone causing a conflict with a Christian because they have a different moral and ethical system, and who thinks Christians are worthless, yes, I can and would tell you that you're wrong.

Quote from: Godexists
Sure. So what ? That still doesnt make my different moral and ethics be wrong. They are just different.
If you harm someone else, or advocate harming someone else, then you have no room to complain if someone harms you.  I can and will say that this attitude is wrong, because it just exacerbates the problem.  "Different" only applies to something that is not harmful to other people.

Quote from: Godexists
If i risk to be harmed , that is just my problem. You have still not shown me, that my moral perception is less valid, better or worse, than yours.  If naturalism is true, no good or bad exists. Everything becomes relative. Total Nihilism, senselessness, and emptyness is the end of the road for atheism  thought trough.
No, it is not just your problem.  By doing something like this, you would be attacking your community for purely selfish interests.  That is without question immoral, and such a person is nothing but a danger to society as a whole.  So it's everyone's problem. not just yours.

And atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with nihilism.  Your belief that it does is based on pure ignorance; you get your information from other ignorant people who don't know any better.  Given that I am quite sure you would object to someone declaring similar sentiments about Christianity, this also means that you're an immoral hypocrite; you're okay with it when it's you doing it to other people, but not so much when it's done to you.

Quote from: Godexists
No, you have not, as demonstrated.
You've failed to demonstrate anything except your ignorance here.  I've associated with atheists here for over a year, talking with them and learning about them from their own mouths and actions.  You get your information from equally-ignorant Christians who's only justification for their statements is that they turn their own beliefs inside out and then assume that they're describing atheists.  And even leaving me aside, every single atheist here is immensely more qualified to talk about morality as it pertains to atheism than you, because they are atheists.  Not a single one of them even slightly resembles the kind of nihilistic nonsense that you claim applies to them.

Quote from: Godexists
You have not yet shown how to define good behavior. If someone sets the standard that kill little babies is a good behavior, how possibly can you say that moral standard is wrong ? You cannot.
Yes, I certainly well have.  You define good behavior by determining what you would not like to have done with you, and then applying it to other people.  This is extended outwards through the family, the community, etc.  There is no chance at all that this 'standard' that you're suggesting would ever become a societal standard, because it fails the test of "would you like to have it done to you/people you know".  Even sociopaths are capable of applying that basic standard, despite them not having consciences.  So yes, I can say that it's wrong behavior.

Quote from: Godexists
Well, could you point where the list got it wrong , and where you differe in opinion ?
The list got every single item wrong, and thus I differ in every instance with it.  Personally, I think Astreja got it pretty close to right when she modified it.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2125
  • Darwins +135/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #77 on: July 07, 2012, 12:11:06 PM »
So what is the the basis for your objective morality, if God does not exist ?

Morality is objectively useful for survival- no god necessary.

When I say objective, I don't mean that good/evil and right/wrong came into existence with the universe, like the four fundamental forces of nature. I currently think that an objective morality was a process that developed through cooperation of living organisms, based on actions and consequences, through biological evolution. I don't use the word subjective for this because I've found morality to be, at its most basic level, universal among living creatures.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3082
  • Darwins +280/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #78 on: July 07, 2012, 01:04:29 PM »
I ask you {Boots} again : how can you know what is objectively good, if naturalism is true ?

Personally, I see no evidence whatsoever for objective morality.  Even the 10 Commandments are subjective.

If you get your morality from a god, GE, is it objective or subjective?  I think that it's purely subjective, based upon a god's opinion of what is right or wrong.

I do not live according to YOUR moral standard... So i have no problem with eating meat.

So we are obviously subjectively different in our opinions regarding the morality or immorality of eating meat.

Quote
Btw. accodring to your moral standard, you cannot even kill a moskito. Do you kill moskitos ?

It's spelled "mosquito."  I occasionally do kill them, but not with malice of forethought.  If I notice them in time, I shoo them away with My hand rather than smacking them.  I also do not stomp on ants; I capture spiders and bugs and release them alive into the garden, and I'd rather live-trap a mouse than kill it.

Quote
And : why do you think, your life is more worth than the one of a moskito ? How do you set your value system, to detect, which life is more valuable ?

I do not recall saying that My life *was* of more value than that of a mosquito.  I live My life; I do not weigh its relative worth against that of other living things.

Quote
So if i think kill someone is a good thing, that is a opinion, as much worth as of someone else, that thinks the oposit - according to your world view.

"Opinion" is just that, an opinion.  Society is made up of innumerable opinions, but societies that endure do have codes of law that seek to minimize the differences between conflicting viewpoints.

Quote
Oh sure. Serial killers , that know how not to be catched, don't need to worry...

Funny you should say that, GE:  Winnipeg police nabbed a serial killer just a couple of weeks ago.  Interestingly, he was living in an apartment in the very same block of the city where I had lived for 17 years.

Quote
What does your answer {about the safety of the average city} have to do in regard of the difference of subjective x objective morality ??

Everything.  Despite differences of gender, sexuality, nationality, ethnicity, philosophy and what we take in our tea, the vast majority of us are not constantly at one another's throats.  If there were one standard (and particularly if it were a divine standard actively enforced by a legalistic deity), one would expect to see all but one community (the one with the "right" morality) in constant turmoil.

Quote
Hitler {had a clearly delineated standard of right and wrong} as well...

And, if you met Me in Real Life, you would notice that My country is not currently being attacked by a dozen other countries; nor do I expect to commit suicide in a bunker somewhere under Winnipeg.  I reiterate:  If you deliberately cause harm, other people will go out of their way to make you stop.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6826
  • Darwins +555/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #79 on: July 07, 2012, 01:25:18 PM »
Who is more "good?"  One who does good based on punishment/reward, or one who does good only becasue it's good?
Which is "more good" in YOUR OPINION?

Your question is irrelevant. You believe that the christian moral basis is fear. But its not. Its love.

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. 1 Jn 4:16b-18
I think we can dismiss 1 John as a forgery and added later by some pious fraud. You started your quote where you did because 1Jo:4:12a: No man hath seen God at any time.
Which, considering the claims in Genesis and other parts of the OT, would seem to be a straightforward lie.

I say "lie" as 1 John claims to be inspired, yet such fault shows it is not.

Basically, Yahweh is not the god of love,

Deut. 32:39: See now that I, [even] I, [am] he, and [there is] no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither [is there any] that can deliver out of my hand.

Ex:15:3: The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

2 Chron. 15:13: That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Exodus 4:11 And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?

Proverb:1:24: Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
Proverb:1:25: But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:
Proverb:1:26: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
Proverb:1:27: When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.
Proverb:1:28: Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:

Ro:9:21: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?


So, please, let's have no more of this "God is love" garbage.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6826
  • Darwins +555/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #80 on: July 07, 2012, 01:37:52 PM »
Faith that after death there are only worms.
Well, there's a good question!

Lets see what some people who have experienced death have to say about it:


Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #81 on: July 07, 2012, 01:56:27 PM »
Your website is just the opinion of many others..... nobody knows for sure. its all guesswork......
You don't get to decide that someone else's evidence is irrelevant just because it disagrees with what you believe.  In other words, if you aren't willing to contest what that site says, you're conceding the discussion about lightning.

I am still unable to open your website.


Quote
I grasp it just fine.  However, your objection is irrelevant to what I was actually saying.  To keep it very simple so you have no trouble understanding, if someone else were to shoot you in the head, you would certainly consider it wrong for them to do so.

no. In that case, i would be dead.  ;)


 
Quote
Basic morality is about considering the impact of your actions on another; if you're the kind of person who only considers how something affects you, then you don't have morality even if you believe in an objective morality passed down from some god.

you are dodging my point.

Quote from: Godexists
Not in the slightest.  What you are failing to understand is that Hitler's actions did tremendous harm to a lot of people, and he did them because of personal motives (he hated Jews and used them as an excuse to gain and hold power).  The fact that non-Jew Germans agreed with him is irrelevant in this case, because they were fooled into believing Hitler's lies, and many of them simply did not know the full scope of his plans.  So no, I won't agree that Hitler and the Germans did right, and your attitude that I should clearly shows that you really don't understand how morality works.

So please explain me how morality works. Again : If Hitler thought that harm people is a good thing, based on what can you say your moral judgement is superior to his ? You really cannot, but you seem to ignore this fact.

Quote from: Godexists
So how do you know that the life of animals is less worth than of humans ? are they not result same as humans, of mindless natural forces ?
The fact that cows and other food animals came from the same evolutionary process as humans did means nothing in and of itself.  Modern diseases developed through that same evolutionary process, and I don't consider it a problem to treat them (which involves killing the disease microorganisms).  As for the rest, I reiterate, cows aren't people.  If they were, it would be different, but as it stands, it's a little silly to worry about them when we specifically grow them for food.

Again : dodging the point i made. Please explain the difference between cows, and people. Arent both living beings ? Why should it be ok to kill cows, and not humans ?

Quote from: Godexists
Sure there is. But why should there be made a distinction ? Isnt it harmful for animals, to kill them ? Why not kill humans, but animals ?
Because humans are people.  They have culture, civilization.  We can communicate with each other in a meaningful fashion.  We can't communicate with cows, or virtually any other animals for that matter.  There's a case to be made for intelligent animals (for example, tool-users), and I would argue that they should not be treated as mere animals, but cows certainly don't qualify as such.

Humans are people. So what ????!!!! You make a distinction, which based on your world view makes no sense. We are just higher evolved animals based on your thinking, nothing else.
Goal of evolution is just  survival of the fittest. So whatever advances the race is ok. Deduction ? Anything that benefits me is good - which means you can do basically whatever you wish.

If you want to behave consistently with your world view, i give you a good example ( that does not mean, all atheists are inclided to live as Madelyn did, but she lived according to her world view ) :

http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/

Madelyn Murray O’Hair.  Madelyn always behaved consistently with her belief.  Her speech was profane, using all the vilest invectives at every opportunity. She reputedly “went through people like popcorn”, and “excommunicated” all who did not conform to her dogma.  She waged war on other Atheist groups.  She issued a “postnatal abortion” for her (illegitimate) son who had become a Christian.  She was above virtually everyone, and certainly above laws.  She never paid taxes.  She stole from her own group, the American Atheists.  She set up secret bank accounts, and planned for quick get-aways, just in case.  She also waged war on Christians and Christianity, and got prayer banned from schools.  She reveled in, and openly promoted hate, which she considered a valid emotion.  Her staff described her as fearsome and completely self-centered.  In short, she behaved consistently with her Atheist belief, and she railed against those who did not.  She died an Atheist, at the hands of one of her staff, an ex-con named Waters, who stuffed her into a 55 gallon drum.


Quote from: Godexists
Given that you would almost certainly object strongly to someone causing a conflict with a Christian because they have a different moral and ethical system, and who thinks Christians are worthless, yes, I can and would tell you that you're wrong.

the fact that i would object it and not like it means not that it is morally objectionable based on your world view. Again, without objective moral values, whatever opinion someone might have on a subject, is nothing else than just a opinion. Good and bad does not exist.

Quote from: Godexists
If you harm someone else, or advocate harming someone else, then you have no room to complain if someone harms you.

So ?

 
Quote
I can and will say that this attitude is wrong, because it just exacerbates the problem.  "Different" only applies to something that is not harmful to other people.

Again : If i think harm other people is a good thing, or even lets say that if i think that being harmed by others is a good thing, based on what can you say i am wrong ? you have no instance you can appeal to say so. There is nothing above you.....

Quote from: Godexists
No, it is not just your problem.  By doing something like this, you would be attacking your community for purely selfish interests.  That is without question immoral, and such a person is nothing but a danger to society as a whole.  So it's everyone's problem. not just yours.

Who says its immoral ? Again : Based on what can you say the Nazis were wrong ? It becomes just a matter of personal taste. Nothing else. Without God, objective good and bad cannot exist. All things become permitted.

Quote
And atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with nihilism.  Your belief that it does is based on pure ignorance

Well, i would not say, atheists live like nihilists, but if you want to live your world view coherently, you should live like a nihilist. Since if a objective moral standard does not exist, ( and without God it is not possible to set a foundation of such ), then your moral standard is just based on subjectivity. That leads unquestioned to nihilism. But the fact is that you do not live like that. You live as there are indeed objective moral values and duties. Therefore, you do not live your world view consequently. If you would , than you would not be able to live it happily.


Quote from: Godexists
Yes, I certainly well have.  You define good behavior by determining what you would not like to have done with you, and then applying it to other people.  This is extended outwards through the family, the community, etc.  There is no chance at all that this 'standard' that you're suggesting would ever become a societal standard, because it fails the test of "would you like to have it done to you/people you know".  Even sociopaths are capable of applying that basic standard, despite them not having consciences.  So yes, I can say that it's wrong behavior.

In a other society, like Papuas, for example, it is socially acceptable to kill people of a other tribe, and eat them. So in the end, it all turns out to be subjective. Therefore, you cannot base morality on a atheistic world view.


Offline on:bread:alone

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
  • Darwins +8/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #82 on: July 07, 2012, 02:40:27 PM »

If you want to behave consistently with your world view, i give you a good example ( that does not mean, all atheists are inclided to live as Madelyn did, but she lived according to her world view ) :

http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/

Madelyn Murray O’Hair.  Madelyn always behaved consistently with her belief.  Her speech was profane, using all the vilest invectives at every opportunity. She reputedly “went through people like popcorn”, and “excommunicated” all who did not conform to her dogma.  She waged war on other Atheist groups.  She issued a “postnatal abortion” for her (illegitimate) son who had become a Christian.  She was above virtually everyone, and certainly above laws.  She never paid taxes.  She stole from her own group, the American Atheists.  She set up secret bank accounts, and planned for quick get-aways, just in case.  She also waged war on Christians and Christianity, and got prayer banned from schools.  She reveled in, and openly promoted hate, which she considered a valid emotion.  Her staff described her as fearsome and completely self-centered.  In short, she behaved consistently with her Atheist belief, and she railed against those who did not.  She died an Atheist, at the hands of one of her staff, an ex-con named Waters, who stuffed her into a 55 gallon drum.


you should really, really consider a better website to continuously cite your examples from. this website is militantly biased against athiests, and makes us all out to be heathens and devils and all that hooey. it would be like me logging onto a "love that jesus" forum and posting articles from www.whygodsucksshit.com with the expectation that the other members of the forum would accept the article as quasi-respectable literature or consider any of its content to be remotely admissible, or anything other than slanderous bullshit for that matter.
i'm a street-walking cheetah with a heart full of napalm.

please, check out www.letsgetrational.com

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3956
  • Darwins +265/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #83 on: July 07, 2012, 02:49:46 PM »
Wrong you intellectually dishonest pinhead:

oh sure...... lets see what atheists have to take on faith to held their world view as true :

http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/




Yes it is a kind of faith. It is that same kind of faith that I have that my shoes do not fly around my round when I am asleep and no recording devices are present. I'm sure you share that same faith, the faith of NoFlyingShoeswhlesleeping, how's that faith working out for you? Does it require a deep conviction of resolute solemnity, or do you have that faith because the proposition that your shoes fly around when you are asleep is in contradiction to everything observable about reality?
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12555
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #84 on: July 07, 2012, 02:51:46 PM »
Your website is just the opinion of many others..... nobody knows for sure. its all guesswork......
You don't get to decide that someone else's evidence is irrelevant just because it disagrees with what you believe.  In other words, if you aren't willing to contest what that site says, you're conceding the discussion about lightning.
I am still unable to open your website.

What error shows up?  The site works fine for me.

Or, do you mean that because it contradicts your claim, you are pathologically unable to open it?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline shnozzola

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1969
  • Darwins +110/-2
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #85 on: July 07, 2012, 03:58:09 PM »
I like this – might as well jump in.

Godexists - from your quote above:

Quote
A Faith Statement might be as follows:
I have complete, non-negotiable FAITH in the following tenets:
•        Faith that the supreme intelligence in the universe is me, embodied in my mind.
   
Wrong – I believe there is intelligence all over the universe – I am nothing compared to it (especially me).
But I don’t know for sure.
Quote
•        Faith that the appearances of design are false.
 
The only design is by intelligence, natural beings, such as humans here.
Quote
•        Faith that the first life self-assembled from warm chemicals in goo.
Yes – over millennia – check on threads from Kcrady – lipids, + and – charges. Each reaction may have taken 1000 years - who knows?
You underestimate time – were not talking 50000 years here. Time never gets credit.
Quote
•        Faith that the universe is a self-induced, random occurrence.
Yes.
Quote
•        Faith that a “multiverse” that we can’t see is a rationale for a random universe producing life (Anthropic principle is false).
Yes – it seems you are looking this stuff up – good.  Stick around long enough – you’ll see…..
Quote
•        Faith that my mind is an assembly of random mutations, with no actual purpose beyond survival of the fittest. (A Meat Machine).  Even so, it is the supreme intelligence in the universe.
Yes, survival, but no – much intelligent life throughout the infinite universe.
Quote
•        Faith that the brain and the mind are one thing, inseparable.
Yes and no – we do not understand the human mind very well – look at savants, for instance.
Quote
•        Faith that there is no intelligence in DNA.
Only as a survival mechanism.
Quote
•        Faith that if I can’t sense it, it does not exist. (No metaphysical existence).
I can’t sense Pluto, but I think it exists.
Quote
•        Faith that empiricism is the one and only true path to all-encompassing Truth and Enlightenment.
I disagree.
Quote
•        Faith in Evolution, which is unquestionable; it is non-negotiable truth. See         “Heresy”, below.
Yes.
Quote
•        Faith that, because Evolution is non-negotiable truth, life has no meaning.
Why do you say that?  If you found out once and for all heaven did not exist – life for you
would have no meaning?
Quote
•        Faith that after death there are only worms.
Nope – descendants.

Godexists – you should consider standing “outside of your shoes” of beliefs and think how, yes, every single discovery, invention, thought, promise, and awakening   that mankind has undergone has been on our own – there never was a god, even though we believed, and realizing there is none makes the consideration of our circumstances infinitly more important – can’t you see that? – Please try it.  Most of us here were theists – we just came to realize – and we are not worse people for it.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 04:01:07 PM by shnozzola »
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #86 on: July 07, 2012, 05:54:41 PM »
there never was a god, even though we believed

prove it.