Author Topic: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread  (Read 6765 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline shnozzola

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1968
  • Darwins +110/-2
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #87 on: July 07, 2012, 06:08:03 PM »
I can’t prove it.  Especially with all the definitions of god.   I’m trying to get you to view the evidence from a different view than you usually do.  My main concern is that religious people are so damned sure of their beliefs that they continue to kill people over it – it is what drives a lot of the interest in atheism, in my opinion.  Do you understand why people would start to fear the religious and decide it is time for rational thinking to take over?
“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

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5262
  • Darwins +601/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #88 on: July 07, 2012, 08:16:15 PM »
I am still unable to open your website.
It's not my website, it's a U.S. government agency's website, thus the .gov affix to the URL.  So it may be a country issue, since you aren't in the United States.  However, I find that doubtful, unless it's on your country's end.  Either way, the simple gist of things is that lightning has clear and evident natural causes - the interactions of positive (proton) and negative (electron) charges in the atmosphere.  That's why you often see lightning flickering in the clouds, because the electrical potential is transferring itself from the negative ions to the positive ones.  The exact same thing happens when lightning strikes the ground.  It isn't mystical or magical, it requires no supernatural explanation.

Quote from: Godexists
no. In that case, i would be dead.  ;)
Point taken.  Let's say instead that you would seriously object if someone pointed a gun at your head and threatened to shoot you.  That means, by extension, that someone else would similarly object if you pointed a gun at their head and threatened to shoot them.

Quote from: Godexists
you are dodging my point.
You are not one to talk about dodging, first off.  Second, no, I wasn't dodging your point.  I was elaborating on the point about morality I made a moment before.  Namely that it is dependent on considering how your actions affect others, since otherwise you have no grounds to complain if their actions affect you adversely.

Quote from: Godexists
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.
What do you think I've been doing for the past four or five posts?  If Hitler thought harming other people was a "good" thing, then I can very well say that my moral judgment is superior to his, for the very simple fact that he would not think other people harming him was a good thing.  In other words, his moral judgment was inconsistent and hypocritical.  Mine, which takes into account the empathic consideration that what I would not want done to me restricts what I can do to others, is neither.

Quote from: Godexists
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 ?
Again, not dodging a single thing.  To rephrase the points I already made, which you apparently could not understand, cows are not people.  They do not have culture or civilization.  They cannot communicate with each other (or us) in a meaningful fashion.  An animal which could do such things would qualify as a person in my book.  Cows clearly do not.  The fact that both are living macro-organisms is irrelevant.  Cows cannot argue the point about whether or not they should be eaten, therefore there is no reason to consider them equivalent to humans.

Quote from: Godexists
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.
No, I made a distinction which makes perfect sense, unless you substitute your patently ridiculous idea of what my worldview is for what my worldview actually is.  It would be like someone arguing that Christians are ritual cannibals because of the communion ritual.  You surely would not accept such a distinction because you know it to be false, yet this other person keeps telling you that your arguments against him make no sense because they don't fit what he thinks your worldview should be.

That is exactly what you're doing to me, and to the atheists on this site.  And you need to stop it.  You cannot learn anything as long as you're firmly convinced that you already know the answer.  It is extremely clear that you can't distinguish what atheism actually is from a hill of beans.  The sooner you acknowledge this and stop trying to substitute your beliefs about atheism for what atheists actually say, the better.

By the way, you made several critical mistakes in this section of your post.
  • You claim that the goal of evolution is survival of the fittest--which is wrong, incidentally, as the 'goal' of evolution, such as a mindless process can be said to have a goal, is to facilitate reproduction, which does not necessarily have anything to do with fitness or survival of the individual.
  • Then you claim that whatever advances the race is good, but 'race' is an artificial term used to refer to minor somatic differences between humans; as every 'race' can interbreed with every other 'race', it is completely irrelevant to anything as far as evolution goes.  But for the sake of argument I'll assume that you meant species instead of race.
  • Finally you claim that anything that benefits you is good.  This is patently wrong, even based on your "what advances the race/species is good" argument.  You are a single human being; your only importance from a purely evolutionary perspective is whether or not you reproduce.  In fact, if you engage in certain behaviors (such as the "raping, torturing, killing, and eating of little babies" you mentioned earlier), you're actually detrimental from an evolutionary perspective.  By the same argument, Hitler was detrimental from an evolutionary perspective because of his idiotic obsession with "racial purity" that led to the Holocaust.

The key point, however, is that morality is not based on evolutionary principles.  It's based on how people interact with each other, from the individual all the way up to the civilization.

Quote from: Godexists
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 ) :
And what makes you think that Madelyn O'Hair is in any way representative of atheists?  It seems like this is a cherry-picked example of a single atheist who did act in a nihilistic fashion.  But that does not mean that atheism has anything to do with nihilism.  I'm quite sure there are some nihilistic Christians out there; how would you like it if someone pointed to one of them and asked you why you weren't acting according to your Christian worldview?  And every time you tried to correct them, they blew you off and insisted that that nihilistic Christians were in fact representative of Christianity as a whole, because of some bizarre arguments they pulled off of some website which claimed to analyze Christianity.

I am quite sure you would not like it at all, yet that is exactly the way you're acting towards atheists!

Quote from: Godexists
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.
Don't try to tell me what is and isn't morally objectionable based on my world view.  You do not know my world view in any way.  You are only basing your opinion of atheism in general on a twisted and deceitful "analysis" from some internet website which claims to "analyze atheism", which in fact clearly uses biased reasoning and cherry-picked examples to support its arguments.  And to top it all off, you're claiming that it's "inconsistent" for an atheist not to act in the way your prejudices demand that they should, never mind that it is rather silly to expect your prejudices to apply to other people when you're basing them off of something as fallacious as this.

Quote from: Godexists
So ?
What I said is the basis of morality.  If you claim not to understand this, then you cannot claim to understand how morality really works.

Quote from: Godexists
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.....
There's a psychological term - masochism - for someone who enjoys being hurt.  However, only a very small percentage of people are masochists.  They do not represent people as a whole, and it is silly for you to even try to make the argument that it's somehow representative of humans as a whole if there is no god to dole morality out.  And the simple fact is that I don't have to appeal to some "higher power" to say that such things are wrong.  That's why we have civilizations and laws, to establish a framework for what's acceptable and what's not acceptable.  That framework in no way requires a god or "higher power" to work.

Quote from: Godexists
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.
You keep saying this, but it does not change the fact that it is completely wrong.  What the Nazis did is in no way a matter of personal taste.  They felt they could justify whatever they wanted to do, but the fact is that they were wrong.  Other countries objected to their murderous and vicious ways and stopped them.  Not some "god", not some "higher power".  If we had depended on this god you believe in and its presumed "objective morality" to stop the Nazis, they'd still be ruling Europe, if not the rest of the world.

And no, all things do not become permitted without a god to dictate what's okay and what isn't.  The fact that you think otherwise is your failure of logic, and is in no way representative of reality.  What you mean is that all actions are possible without the kind of absolute divine morality you think needs to exist.  But permitted?  If there is nobody to do the permitting, it is nonsensical to say that they are permitted.  Besides from that, the fact that an action is possible doesn't mean it will be allowed.  All of the people who actually understand that murder is wrong because they would not want it happening to them, or who understand that torture is wrong because they would not want it happening to them, will not allow it to happen.  That's why we have laws.  Sure, laws aren't perfect, but they're far better than the just plain silly concept you have that without a god, anarchy and nihilism just have to reign, even though they clearly don't.

Quote from: Godexists
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.
No, I understood you quite clearly.  You think atheism and nihilism are fundamentally the same thing.  No amount of pious claims that you don't really think atheists live like nihilists, but that they really should if they want to be consistent in their beliefs, is going to fool anyone here into thinking you mean anything other than the concept that atheism = nihilism.  Atheism in no way leads to nihilism except based on the twisted reasoning of you and the people you quote from.

I do not live as if there are objective moral values that come from some god.  Does that come as a shock?  I will state what my actual worldview is so as to demolish this ridiculous idea you have that you can judge me despite not knowing me at all.  And it is very simple.  My worldview is that morality is based on what humans agree to in order to live together peacefully.  As our knowledge and understanding grows, our morality changes.  It must, because the simpler concepts of morality that exist in the past cannot answer the problems that we face now, let alone the problems we will face in the future.  In the past, people came up with gods to provide that morality, but those gods were never necessary in order for morality to exist and develop.  The fact is that people would have lived by similar rules had the concept of "god" never come about to begin with, because society cannot exist without that moral agreement that allows people to coexist peacefully.

Quote from: Godexists
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.
You do realize that this example completely and utterly demolishes your argument that some god is necessary for morality, right?  If such a god existed, it would not make sense for such tribes to exist in the first place, because there would be no reason that the god could not simply establish the rules he expected people to live by, and the penalties for transgression of those rules.  That's what your idea of objective morality actually requires to be valid.  What we actually have is exactly the sort of morality that you decry as fundamentally leading to nihilism - people coming up with their own rules.  Except, strangely enough, that has never happened throughout the entirety of human history.  No society can exist at all unless it has rules by which its members agree to live by.

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 #89 on: July 07, 2012, 08:32:00 PM »
  Do you understand why people would start to fear the religious and decide it is time for rational thinking to take over?

No , i don't. What i specially do not understand, is why atheists believe they are rational. In my view, they are not. But rather blinded by their wishful thinking, no God to exist, for whatever reason.
There are so many flaws in their thinking,  i don't know even where to begin with......

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5262
  • Darwins +601/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #90 on: July 07, 2012, 08:57:47 PM »
No , i don't. What i specially do not understand, is why atheists believe they are rational. In my view, they are not. But rather blinded by their wishful thinking, no God to exist, for whatever reason.
There are so many flaws in their thinking,  i don't know even where to begin with......
The reason you don't know where to begin is because you don't really understand atheists and atheism in the first place.  You're basing your ideas not on any kind of rational analysis of atheism, but on taking your own worldview and turning it inside out.  Of course you don't understand how someone like that could be rational!  Your mistake, that you persist in making, is that this is in any way representative of atheism and atheists.

It'll be a lot easier to understand if you stop letting your beliefs about atheism get in the way of the reality.

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 #91 on: July 07, 2012, 09:41:00 PM »
What i specially do not understand, is why atheists believe they are rational. In my view, they are not. But rather blinded by their wishful thinking, no God to exist, for whatever reason.

Godexists, you're somewhat of an atheist yourself. You're an atheist concerning Baal, Osiris, Ra, Enlil, Tiamat, Marduk, Ishtar, Odin, Thor, Loki, Zeus, Apollo, Freya, Gaia, Vishnu, Shiva, Quetzalcoatl, Nammu, Jupiter, Anu... the list goes on, and on, and on.

The only difference between you and I, is that I take it one god further: the middle eastern desert god Yahweh.

Imagine if I wholeheartedly believed in Marduk. And I said this to you:

Quote from: Zankuu
What I especially do not understand, is why people who do not believe in Marduk think they are rational. In my view, they are not. Instead, they are blinded by their wishful thinking that Marduk does not exist... for whatever reason.

You would think I was under the delusion that the bronze age Babylonian god Marduk exists. Now imagine that there are 2.1 billion people on this planet that believe Marduk exists, pray to Marduk daily, condemn those that don't follow Marduk as immoral and irrational, don't allow people with blue eyes to get married, and cut off the index finger of their newborn babies. And those are just the moderate Mardukians. The fundamental Mardukians burn heretics at the stake and behead those that attempt to leave the religion. Would you not consider Mardukians dangerous, and want to help these people break free from this barbaric religion?

It's easy to throw out labels, Godexists, but at the end of the day we're both human beings. Does this help you understand the atheist position a little better?
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2343
  • Darwins +437/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #92 on: July 07, 2012, 09:58:15 PM »
  Do you understand why people would start to fear the religious and decide it is time for rational thinking to take over?

No , i don't. What i specially do not understand, is why atheists believe they are rational. In my view, they are not. But rather blinded by their wishful thinking, no God to exist, for whatever reason.

While I think I'm probably in the minority in this forum, I kinda do wish that there was an all-powerful, all-loving entity out there making sure that there were no needless suffering happening in the universe.  So the notion that I simply wish that god did not exist doesn't really hold in my case.

Quote

There are so many flaws in their thinking,  i don't know even where to begin with......

Start with one flaw - no need to wrap any kind of narrative around it or anything that complex.  Just start with "One of the problems with atheist thinking is" and go from there.  Then it can be discussed.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Online JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2127
  • Darwins +252/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #93 on: July 07, 2012, 10:34:49 PM »
No , i don't. What i specially do not understand, is why atheists believe they are rational. In my view, they are not.

Many of us feel the same way about you.  In fact, I personally now find you so irrational that it is clearly no longer worth talking to you about naturalism anymore.  Valid points have been made in defense of naturalism for many pages now, and you just aren't going to get it.  Your belief in God is not going to change, even though you are patently wrong about it.  And you are.  God is not real.  It's fake.  Sorry. 

Did you ever stop to think that part of the reason you think we are being irrational is because we have a different amount or a different type of education from you in this area?  That perhaps we have learned a great deal more about the universe, and the bible, and about the arguments on both sides of the aisle than you have, and thus we are equipped differently to examine the universe from a scientific, natural perspective and you just aren't?  If that were the case, then of course we are going to seem irrational when we say the universe is natural if you don't understand it the same way we do.  I imagine the first person who said, "Hmm, I wonder if that earthquake wasn't from God, but something natural that we just don't understand yet", was looked upon as irrational by his peers as well.  But guess what?  He was right. 

But rather blinded by their wishful thinking, no God to exist, for whatever reason.

The fact that you can't think of a valid reason (and hence your use of the phrase 'for whatever reason') other than wishful thinking is telling here.  Why do you think it matters what I WANT to be true in this case?  I wish ice cream didn't make me fat, but I don't eat it at every meal thinking I'm going to stay thin either.  If God were real, I would accept it.  I don't wish for God not to be real, but even if I did, that wouldn't matter at all in terms of whether or not it is.  On the flip side, your belief in God clearly defines you and who you are.  You have a lot at stake if you're wrong.  Maybe you should look at your motivations before questioning others.  Perhaps it is you who are blinded by your faith. 

The fact of the matter is that there is no reason to believe that God exists.  There used to be, back when there were no natural explanations for anything; but that was before modern science came along.  Now, there is just no evidence for god. It's a dead concept.  There are no questions for which 'God did it' is a provable, answer.  No matter how much you want there to be, there aren't. 

There are so many flaws in their thinking,  i don't know even where to begin with......

Everyone has flaws in their thinking.  Nobody's perfect.  But atheism is by far the more rational stance.  You'll never understand that until you pull yourself out of your faith and examine the arguments from both sides as honestly as you can.  Atheism has better arguments.  Hands down.  That is why I'm an atheist myself. It has nothing to do with what I wish to be true, or that I hate God or some such bull shit.  It's simply incorrect.  God isn't real.  I'm as emotional when I say that as I am when I say mermaids aren't real.  I don't wish mermaids weren't real either.  They just aren't. 

But let's look at you for a moment.  Here's one of your flaws.... You believe that 2000 years ago, a man was crucified and rose from the dead 3 days later, correct?  Now, take that notion and think about everything you know... Do you know anyone who's risen from the dead 3 days later?  Do people generally do that?  No?  Now, ask yourself what is more likely; that he really DID rise from the dead, or any other natural explanation (they made the story up, someone moved his dead body, etc)  Are you seriously going to say he rising from the dead is the most reasonable stance?  It's not and you know it's not.  It is FAR more likely that the whole thing is made up.  If you read that in ANY other book ever written, you would instantly dismiss it as a work of fiction.

I could go on and on...
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

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 #94 on: July 07, 2012, 10:40:12 PM »
It isn't mystical or magical, it requires no supernatural explanation.

your deduction does not follow the prerrogative.

 http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-causes-lightning.html

There are several theories stating how lightning is formed, and these theories have generated scores of controversies as well. Scientists have still not succeeded in figuring out this phenomenon completely. However, the polarization mechanism in clouds is the theory which is widely accepted across the globe.

At the meantime, without lightning, life on earth is not possible.


Quote
Point taken.  Let's say instead that you would seriously object if someone pointed a gun at your head and threatened to shoot you.  That means, by extension, that someone else would similarly object if you pointed a gun at their head and threatened to shoot them.

Maibe not. If i want to commit suicide, but have not the courage, i highly welcome it, if someone does the job for me and triggers the gun  ;). Same for others. I would make them a favour.


Quote
You are not one to talk about dodging, first off.

Oh forgot. The right to acuse the other side of dodging, is given only to atheists..... &)

 
Quote
If Hitler thought harming other people was a "good" thing, then I can <a class="inlineAdmedialink" href="#">very[/url] well say that my moral judgment is superior to his, for the very simple fact that he would not think other people harming him was a good thing.

how do you possibly know? maibe he was a masochist ( which is actually a real possibility )......


 
Quote
In other words, his moral judgment was inconsistent and hypocritical.  Mine, which takes into account the empathic consideration that what I would not want done to me restricts what I can do to others, is neither
.

If i am a masochist, and love to be peed into my mouth, does it mean according to your logic, that doing the same to others is a good thing ?

 
Quote
To rephrase the points I already made, which you apparently could not understand, cows are not people.

True, but they are living beings. Do they not have the same right to live, as we humans have ?

Quote
They do not have culture or civilization.

So what ?


Quote
They cannot communicate with each other (or us) in a meaningful <a class="inlineAdmedialink" href="#">fashion[/url].  An animal which could do such things would qualify as a person in my book.  Cows clearly do not.  The fact that both are living macro-organisms is irrelevant.  Cows cannot argue the point about whether or not they should be eaten, therefore there is no reason to consider them equivalent to humans.

So what ? arent they still living beings, having the rights to live ? According to your logic, is it alright to kill Orang Utans ?  Endangered species of extinction ?




Quote
That is exactly what you're doing to me, and to the atheists on this site.  And you need to stop it.  You cannot learn anything as long as you're firmly convinced that you already know the answer.  It is extremely clear that you can't distinguish what atheism actually is from a hill of beans.  The sooner you acknowledge this and stop trying to substitute your beliefs about atheism for what atheists actually say, the better.

I am all ears. Teach me, please.

Quote
The key point, however, is that morality is not based on evolutionary principles.  It's based on how people interact with each other, from the individual all the way up to the civilization.

Morality is not needed in the whole animal world, for animals, that even live socially in groups, to survive. Why does it exist solely within the human race ?

Quote from: Godexists
And what makes you think that Madelyn O'Hair is in any way representative of atheists?

I just gave you a example of someone that lived its atheism  consequently. I did not say, her life style was representative for atheists.


 
Quote
It seems like this is a cherry-picked example of a single atheist who did act in a nihilistic fashion.  But that does not mean that atheism has anything to do with nihilism.  I'm quite sure there are some nihilistic Christians out there; how would you like it if someone pointed to one of them and asked you why you weren't acting according to your Christian worldview?  And every time you tried to correct them, they blew you off and insisted that that nihilistic Christians were in fact representative of Christianity as a whole, because of some bizarre arguments they pulled off of some website which claimed to analyze Christianity.

The only way atheism not to be nihilistic, is if it would declare that objective moral standards exist, and present a solid foundation and ground of such. Unfortunately, atheism can't, since there is no higher instance to set the rules.

Quote
I am quite sure you would not like it at all, yet that is exactly the way you're acting towards atheists!

Not towards atheists, but i show you what you seem not to understand or accept: nihilism is the logical consequence of atheism thought trough. There relies the dilemma. Of course you do not like the fact, that atheism does not deliver a solid foundation for morals - but you live as if it would . You know it is wrong to slaughter innocent children, everything inside of you cries out and says, that kind of behavior is terribly wrong - but if there is no God, you have no foundation to say so. So you make a leap of faith and affirm these values anyway. And doing so, you reveal the inadequacy of your world view without God.

Quote
There's a psychological term - masochism - for someone who enjoys being hurt.  However, only a very small percentage of people are masochists.  They do not represent people as a whole, and it is silly for you to even try to make the argument that it's somehow representative of humans as a whole if there is no god to dole morality out.  And the simple fact is that I don't have to appeal to some "higher power" to say that such things are wrong.  That's why we have civilizations and laws, to establish a framework for what's acceptable and what's not acceptable.  That framework in no way requires a god or "higher power" to work.

Still: on what else, than subjectivity, does this civil framework rely ? What today is en jour, yesterday it was maibe the complete oposit. How can you objectively say, the Papuas are wrong, in killing and eating their enemies, if they have established that this behavior is socially acceptable ?

Quote from: Godexists
You keep saying this, but it does not change the fact that it is completely wrong.  What the Nazis did is in no way a matter of personal taste.  They felt they could justify whatever they wanted to do, but the fact is that they were wrong.  Other countries objected to their murderous and vicious ways and stopped them.  Not some "god", not some "higher power".  If we had depended on this god you believe in and its presumed "objective morality" to stop the Nazis, they'd still be ruling Europe, if not the rest of the world.

Civilisations as the Maia were killing, slaughering their enemies, and eating their heart for centuries. That was something accepted in their civilisation as a whole. Based on what ground can you say, what they did, was objectively wrong ? Based on your world view, you cannot !! You behave as based on atheism you could judge it wrong, but where is the foundation to make that judgement ? you haven't any.

Quote
And no, all things do not become permitted without a god to dictate what's okay and what isn't.  The fact that you think otherwise is your failure of logic, and is in no way representative of reality.  What you mean is that all actions are possible without the kind of absolute divine morality you think needs to exist.  But permitted?  If there is nobody to do the permitting, it is nonsensical to say that they are permitted.  Besides from that, the fact that an action is possible doesn't mean it will be allowed.  All of the people who actually understand that murder is wrong because they would not want it happening to them, or who understand that torture is wrong because they would not want it happening to them, will not allow it to happen.  That's why we have laws.  Sure, laws aren't perfect, but they're far better than the just plain silly concept you have that without a god, anarchy and nihilism just have to reign, even though they clearly don't.

Laws of societies differ... again : based on what can you say, the behavior of Pol Pot, the Mayas, Hitler, Idi Amin, Assad, etc. is wrong ? Just because some societies that commited atrocities do not exist anymore, you cannot say they were morally wrong. Tribes in Papua do commit cannibalism until today. Nobody stopped them so far. How can you say then, they are wrong ?

Quote from: Godexists
  You think atheism and nihilism are fundamentally the same thing.

I have not said that.

 
Quote
Atheism in no way leads to nihilism except based on the twisted reasoning of you and the people you quote from.

You have still not been able to show me a general and commonly accepted  foundation on which morals and ethics can be build on, based on your world view. Mind to try again ?


 
Quote
My worldview is that morality is based on what humans agree to in order to live together peacefully.

Tribes in Papua live peacefully together, while practicing men hunting of other tribes, and eat their enemies. They agree upon them this to be fine. Based on what can you say, they are wrong ?


 
Quote
As our knowledge and understanding grows, our morality changes.  It must, because the simpler concepts of morality that exist in the past cannot answer the problems that we face now

what simpler concepts ?


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 #95 on: July 07, 2012, 10:48:25 PM »
Scientists have still not succeeded in figuring out this phenomenon completely....

...At the meantime, without lightning, life on earth is not possible.

Ah, there's the problem, GE.  You've confounded the existence of lightning with the explanation for lightning.  Lightning has existed for a long time.  It didn't need to be explained by a troop of scientists before it existed; in fact, you may have noticed that it's usually easier to explain something if it does already exist.  ;)

What i specially do not understand, is why atheists believe they are rational. In my view, they are not.

The rationality/irrationality problem seems to upset you.  Is this the case?  If so, what in particular do you find troublesome about the existence of rational atheists?

Quote
There are so many flaws in their thinking,  i don't know even where to begin with...

Start anywhere.  Please give us a brief description of any one specific behaviour that you view as a flaw.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

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 #96 on: July 07, 2012, 10:50:46 PM »
  God is not real.  It's fake.  Sorry.


prove it.

Quote
Did you ever stop to think that part of the reason you think we are being irrational is because we have a different amount or a different type of education from you in this area?  That perhaps we have learned a great deal more about the universe, and the bible, and about the arguments on both sides of the aisle than you have, and thus we are equipped differently to examine the universe from a scientific, natural perspective and you just aren't?

May be. how about you bring the arguments to the table ?


Quote
The fact that you can't think of a valid reason (and hence your use of the phrase 'for whatever reason') other than wishful thinking is telling here.  Why do you think it matters what I WANT to be true in this case?

It matters a LOT. Once you wish God not to exist, you will press all scientific evidence in a way that it fits your preconcepted and wished  world view. No counter argument is considered seriously. That is what is happening here. Check and see : Where is the compelling evidence that  information stored in DNA has natural origin ? I have asked this several times, no answer. 


 
Quote
I wish ice cream didn't make me fat, but I don't eat it at every meal thinking I'm going to stay thin either.  If God were real, I would accept it.  I don't wish for God not to be real, but even if I did, that wouldn't matter at all in terms of whether or not it is.  On the flip side, your belief in God clearly defines you and who you are.  You have a lot at stake if you're wrong.

Atheists do have, too. 

Quote
Maybe you should look at your motivations before questioning others.  Perhaps it is you who are blinded by your faith.


Nobody here so far has given me good reasons to consider that hypotheses.

Quote
The fact of the matter is that there is no reason to believe that God exists.  There used to be, back when there were no natural explanations for anything; but that was before modern science came along.  Now, there is just no evidence for god. It's a dead concept.  There are no questions for which 'God did it' is a provable, answer.  No matter how much you want there to be, there aren't.


No kidding.....  ;D

Open a new thread, and i will present you a good number of good reasons to believe in God.

Quote
Everyone has flaws in their thinking.  Nobody's perfect.  But atheism is by far the more rational stance.  You'll never understand that until you pull yourself out of your faith and examine the arguments from both sides as honestly as you can.


Have YOU done this in regard of theistic arguments ? How about you start on a pracital side, and explain how life arose on earth  by naturalistic means ? Or the flagella ? or blood ? or sex ?
or conscience ? just to mention a few......


 
Quote
Atheism has better arguments.  Hands down.

present them. Stop talking around the cake. Go straight to the point. Present good reasons why philosophic naturalism is true. I am all ears.


 

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 #97 on: July 07, 2012, 10:54:18 PM »
Start with one flaw - no need to wrap any kind of narrative around it or anything that complex.  Just start with "One of the problems with atheist thinking is" and go from there.  Then it can be discussed.

the odds of a life permitting universe by chance has been calculated to be one to 10^173. Atheists believe chance is a perfectly suited mechanism to explain the fine tuning.

Please present the rationality on this thinking.

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 #98 on: July 07, 2012, 10:56:13 PM »
No , i don't. What i specially do not understand, is why atheists believe they are rational. In my view, they are not. But rather blinded by their wishful thinking, no God to exist, for whatever reason.
There are so many flaws in their thinking,  i don't know even where to begin with......
The reason you don't know where to begin is because you don't really understand atheists and atheism in the first place.  You're basing your ideas not on any kind of rational analysis of atheism, but on taking your own worldview and turning it inside out.  Of course you don't understand how someone like that could be rational!  Your mistake, that you persist in making, is that this is in any way representative of atheism and atheists.

It'll be a lot easier to understand if you stop letting your beliefs about atheism get in the way of the reality.

please point out precisely what i get wrong about atheism.

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2808
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #99 on: July 07, 2012, 11:03:42 PM »
Start with one flaw - no need to wrap any kind of narrative around it or anything that complex.  Just start with "One of the problems with atheist thinking is" and go from there.  Then it can be discussed.

the odds of a life permitting universe by chance has been calculated to be one to 10^173. Atheists believe chance is a perfectly suited mechanism to explain the fine tuning.

Please present the rationality on this thinking.
the chance of life is 100% or am I wrong.

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 #100 on: July 07, 2012, 11:09:14 PM »
please point out precisely what i get wrong about atheism.

  • Not all atheists make the assertion "God definitely does not exist."  Some, Myself included, are unconvinced by the evidence that has been provided to us so far.
  • Relatively few atheists are nihilists.  Some, Myself included, are humanists.  We can think of plenty of reasons to stay alive and enjoy our lives.  I went through a brief nihilistic phase in My preteen years, then focused on more interesting and fulfilling things.
  • Many of us are ex-believers.  Some of us were devastated when our faith collapsed, so we weren't engaging in a wilful act of god-denial.  (I exclude Myself from this category:  I was a Christian in name only, baptized as an infant without My informed consent, and never actually believed the stories that I read in the Bible.)

the chance of life is 100% or am I wrong.

I believe you're correct, None.  AFAIK, once an event has actually occurred it has a statistical probability of 1, or absolute certainty.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2808
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #101 on: July 07, 2012, 11:19:27 PM »
I will keep my mouth shut fucking tight and take a pat on the back unless the undead want an argument....
thanks Astreja.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2343
  • Darwins +437/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #102 on: July 07, 2012, 11:20:20 PM »
Start with one flaw - no need to wrap any kind of narrative around it or anything that complex.  Just start with "One of the problems with atheist thinking is" and go from there.  Then it can be discussed.

the odds of a life permitting universe by chance has been calculated to be one to 10^173. Atheists believe chance is a perfectly suited mechanism to explain the fine tuning.

Please present the rationality on this thinking.

I want to know precisely why the conditions for life that we observe as humans, could not have happened without a creator. 

because the odds are too big.

http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2010/05/13/does-a-fine-tuned-universe-lead-to-god

“How many universes then would you need to make it at all probable that one of them could be like our universe? String theorists posit a number of 10 to the power of 500….Now that is an awful lot of universes, particularly since the estimate for the total number of atoms in the entire observable universe is no more than 10 to the power of 80.”

The odds of spit hitting sand grain #6873356 is pretty damn bad too.  On the order of your magic 10^500 number I believe.  But my spit DID hit sand grain #6873356.  Do I get to attribute that to god as well?

You've yet to establish that there are fewer than 10^111111111 universes.  You've yet to establish that any other universe aside from this is even possible (in the opposite way that, say, a triangle can have 7 sides kind of way.  You've also failed to establish why this probability hypothesis of yours excludes the idea that it is at least as probable, if not more so, that god is a sadistic cuntbag making sure that your existence is filled with as many lies and untruths as you could possibly fit in your head as possible.  I mean, let's face it, is there a better chance that god is perfect or not perfect?  How many more variants of imperfection are there over variants of perfection?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.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 #103 on: July 07, 2012, 11:30:13 PM »
It isn't mystical or magical, it requires no supernatural explanation.

your deduction does not follow the prerrogative.

 http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-causes-lightning.html

There are several theories stating how lightning is formed, and these theories have generated scores of controversies as well. Scientists have still not succeeded in figuring out this phenomenon completely. However, the polarization mechanism in clouds is the theory which is widely accepted across the globe.

At the meantime, without lightning, life on earth is not possible.


At the meantime you are still engaging in Underwear Gnomes Theology.
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 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 #104 on: July 07, 2012, 11:32:35 PM »
  God is not real.  It's fake.  Sorry.


prove it.

 



Prove that an intelligent batch of pasta didn't create the universe starting with a mountain and a midget.


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.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5262
  • Darwins +601/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #105 on: July 08, 2012, 12:17:31 AM »
your deduction does not follow the prerrogative.
This is trivial nitpicking.  Or are you trying to suggest that lightning somehow operates on different principles than electricity? The method by which lightning discharges happens in clouds is practically the same as the method by which static electricity discharges between a person's hand and a piece of metal, provided the atmosphere is dry enough to retard the natural bleed-off of electrons (thus forming a concentration of negative ions).  That is exactly the same mechanism that causes lightning in clouds.

Quote from: Godexists
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-causes-lightning.html

There are several theories stating how lightning is formed, and these theories have generated scores of controversies as well. Scientists have still not succeeded in figuring out this phenomenon completely. However, the polarization mechanism in clouds is the theory which is widely accepted across the globe.

At the meantime, without lightning, life on earth is not possible.
If you're going to quote something from another site, put it in quote tags or at least use quotation marks.

Quote from: Godexists
Maibe not. If i want to commit suicide, but have not the courage, i highly welcome it, if someone does the job for me and triggers the gun  ;). Same for others. I would make them a favour.
This is irrelevant to what I said.  There is no question at all that under normal circumstances, you would not "welcome" someone shooting you to death, nor would they "welcome" you shooting them to death.  I'm sure you can keep coming up with very specific "what-if" statements to try to 'prove' me wrong, but that's nothing more than trying to dodge the question, which you've been called on before.  Furthermore, it's quite clear that you can't counter my statement generally, so you're forced to look for specific examples and try to apply them generally, which doesn't work.  Nobody here is fooled by this, so you really need to stop.

Quote from: Godexists
Oh forgot. The right to acuse the other side of dodging, is given only to atheists..... &)
This is pure baloney.  If I were actually dodging, you'd be right to call me on it.  But the fact is that I'm not dodging.  I very clearly stated why that was; instead of rebutting and showing how what I said was dodging, you tried to play this "poor little me, I'm being victimized by atheists" card.  Do you really think that this is going to fool anyone?  All this does is show that you don't really have an argument left, so you're forced to play for pity instead.

Quote from: Godexists
how do you possibly know? maibe he was a masochist ( which is actually a real possibility )......
Give me a break.  Hitler was not a masochist because masochists like having pain inflicted on them, and there is no record whatsoever of anything like what you insinuate here.  I think you mean that there's a very real possibility that he was a sadist (someone who enjoys inflicting pain on others).  Whether he was a sadist or not is irrelevant to this conversation, though.  Quit grasping at straws; the fact that you were forced to resort to this "but but but Hitler might have been a masochist, you can't be sure he wasn't!" nonsense makes it very clear that you don't have any real arguments left to support your contention about Hitler.

Quote from: Godexists
If i am a masochist, and love to be peed into my mouth, does it mean according to your logic, that doing the same to others is a good thing ?
Nope.  Because you also have to consider whether other people enjoy that sort of thing.  But that's not particularly relevant, because the vast majority of human beings are not masochists.  You can't use what a masochist likes or doesn't like as a baseline for what everyone who is not a masochist likes or doesn't like.

Quote from: Godexists
True, but they are living beings. Do they not have the same right to live, as we humans have ?
No, they do not have the same right to live as humans do.  They should not be killed needlessly, but people have to eat something in order to survive, and one of the animals we use for food is the cow.  Before you try to pull out this "but they evolved just like humans did, aren't they the same" argument you keep trotting out, that in no way makes them the equals of humans.

Quote from: Godexists
So what ?
See above.  Culture and civilization are things that humans produce; it is not unreasonable to expect that to be the moral equals of humans, some other animal would have to be able to do the same in a way that can be evaluated and communicated meaningfully to humans.

Quote from: Godexists
So what ? arent they still living beings, having the rights to live ? According to your logic, is it alright to kill Orang Utans ?  Endangered species of extinction ?
Orangutans are protected by laws that humans passed to protect them.  If we passed a law protecting cows from being slaughtered to provide meat to feed people, then the same argument would apply there.  But it doesn't apply; the fact that something is an animal that lives gives it no special privileges or exemptions.  It's the rules that humans make that do that, if anything does.

Quote from: Godexists
I am all ears. Teach me, please.
I'm not the right person to ask.  And it isn't a matter of teaching you, it's a matter of you observing and listening to atheists.

Quote from: Godexists
Morality is not needed in the whole animal world, for animals, that even live socially in groups, to survive. Why does it exist solely within the human race ?
What makes you think morality doesn't exist in other animals?  I watched a really phenomenal nature video filmed on an African savannah of some lionesses who stampeded a herd of buffalo (or whatever they're called in Africa) and took down a calf.  The lionesses had to cooperate in order to keep a crocodile from taking the calf away from them, and then the rest of the herd came back and literally drove the lionesses off to rescue the calf.  Both of those serve as examples of morality in animals; the lionesses had to cooperate in order to hunt effectively, and the herd came back to rescue the calf.  There's other examples of morality in animals, too, it just takes a bit of effort to look for them.

Quote from: Godexists
I just gave you a example of someone that lived its atheism  consequently. I did not say, her life style was representative for atheists.
The point is that the way she lived was not representative of atheists.  Think about it; if her lifestyle was not representative of atheists as a whole, then why would you assume that her behavior was in any way representative of atheists either?

Quote from: Godexists
The only way atheism not to be nihilistic, is if it would declare that objective moral standards exist, and present a solid foundation and ground of such. Unfortunately, atheism can't, since there is no higher instance to set the rules.
You don't need a "higher power" to set the rules in order to have rules to live by and to get others to agree with them.  It's really that simple.  The very fact that atheists, who strongly disavow the existence of any such higher power, have a moral framework that they live by is very strong evidence that no such higher power is needed at all.  There are lots of things which can create an external moral framework, too, from the tribe on up.  You don't need some kind of absolute universal source of morality for morality to exist, which is good because there isn't any such source.

Quote from: Godexists
Not towards atheists, but i show you what you seem not to understand or accept: nihilism is the logical consequence of atheism thought trough. There relies the dilemma. Of course you do not like the fact, that atheism does not deliver a solid foundation for morals - but you live as if it would . You know it is wrong to slaughter innocent children, everything inside of you cries out and says, that kind of behavior is terribly wrong - but if there is no God, you have no foundation to say so. So you make a leap of faith and affirm these values anyway. And doing so, you reveal the inadequacy of your world view without God.
Nihilism is not the logical consequence of atheism.  Nihilism is the logical consequence of discarding one's moral framework.  As atheists have a moral framework, it is completely incorrect to make the statement that nihilism is a consequence of atheism.  Therefore, your 'dilemma' is false.  Atheists do not need some imaginary god to give them morals, they are perfectly capable of following the logic which explains why morals are necessary.  It requires no "leap of faith".

You cannot support this claim.  Every time you try, it turns out that you are doing nothing but projecting how you would feel and act if you suddenly believed that God didn't exist and that the moral framework that you'd lived your life by was false.  That is not how it works for atheists, it has never been how it worked for atheists, and it never will be how it works for atheists - the occasional exception aside, because there's always exceptions.  I'm sure there are some nihilistic Christians out there, but it would be ridiculous to argue that they represented any kind of mainstream view of Christianity.

Quote from: Godexists
Still: on what else, than subjectivity, does this civil framework rely ? What today is en jour, yesterday it was maibe the complete oposit. How can you objectively say, the Papuas are wrong, in killing and eating their enemies, if they have established that this behavior is socially acceptable ?
Laws and customs just don't change that fast, for one thing.

As for the Papuas, I can state quite clearly that they are wrong, because they do not kill and eat their own tribe members.  It would be insane to do so; their tribe would come apart if they tried to establish such a custom.  Therefore, their attitude that it's right to do so to other people is because they do not consider other human beings to be people.  In other words, it is inconsistent because they only apply it outside of their own tribe.  For morality to be consistent, it must apply both inside one's social groupings and outside them.  That's as close to objective as it's possible to get in reality.

Quote from: Godexists
Civilisations as the Maia were killing, slaughering their enemies, and eating their heart for centuries. That was something accepted in their civilisation as a whole. Based on what ground can you say, what they did, was objectively wrong ? Based on your world view, you cannot !! You behave as based on atheism you could judge it wrong, but where is the foundation to make that judgement ? you haven't any.
You do realize that almost every ancient tribe based its morality on the deities it believed in, right?  Who are you to say that their gods never existed, when you claim that your own god exists?  That's a problem you have to deal with when you claim that your morality comes from on high, and you can't get around it by claiming that all those other gods are false, and only your god is true.  And by the way, no, I don't base my morality on atheism.  That's patently ridiculous.  Why would anyone base their morality something they believed didn't exist?  If that's the reason you think atheism leads to nihilism, then perhaps you'd better rethink that conclusion.

In any case, the fact that a Central American or South American tribe had customs like ritual sacrifice in no way makes those customs right.  However, that is not the same as saying those customs did not have a purpose.  Ritual sacrifice of defeated warriors was a way to keep enemy tribes in line, as they would know that if they fought again and lost, they would become still weaker.  I understand why they did it, but I can still say it was wrong of them to do it because of the harm it did those other tribes, as well as the inevitable harm that was done to their own tribe when they later fell to their enemies.

Quote from: Godexists
Laws of societies differ... again : based on what can you say, the behavior of Pol Pot, the Mayas, Hitler, Idi Amin, Assad, etc. is wrong ? Just because some societies that commited atrocities do not exist anymore, you cannot say they were morally wrong. Tribes in Papua do commit cannibalism until today. Nobody stopped them so far. How can you say then, they are wrong ?
Yes, I certainly can say they were morally wrong, because they did things which were not morally consistent.  All those things that they did were done to 'outsiders', to "not-people", to the 'other', never to their own people.  That lack of moral consistency is why I say that their actions were morally wrong.

Quote from: Godexists
I have not said that.
Quit trying to dodge.  You said the one leads to the other, and that effectively means that they're the same thing to you, just at different stages, such as how a caterpillar is the same organism as the butterfly that later emerges from its chrysalis.

Quote from: Godexists
You have still not been able to show me a general and commonly accepted  foundation on which morals and ethics can be build on, based on your world view. Mind to try again ?
I have been doing so through my entire time in this thread.  If you are not able or willing to pay attention, then so be it, but you lose the right to keep claiming that I have not done so.

Quote from: Godexists
Tribes in Papua live peacefully together, while practicing men hunting of other tribes, and eat their enemies. They agree upon them this to be fine. Based on what can you say, they are wrong ?
A group of people who regularly attack and kill members of other tribes is not what I'd call "living together peacefully".  If you think it is, then I must say that your definition of "living together peacefully" is completely incomprehensible and illogical.

Quote from: Godexists
what simpler concepts ?
I'm pretty sure that the ancient Israelite tribes had no conception of airplanes, automobiles, firearms, refrigerators, vaccines...  I could literally go on for hours listing various things that the morality of ancient tribes would not have been able to deal with.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6826
  • Darwins +553/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #106 on: July 08, 2012, 04:34:08 AM »
It isn't mystical or magical, it requires no supernatural explanation.

your deduction does not follow the prerrogative.

 http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-causes-lightning.html

There are several theories stating how lightning is formed, and these theories have generated scores of controversies as well. Scientists have still not succeeded in figuring out this phenomenon completely. However, the polarization mechanism in clouds is the theory which is widely accepted across the globe.

At the meantime, without lightning, life on earth is not possible.
But there is lightning, so there is life.

Godexists,

There are not so many people who understand how an automatic gearbox in a car works. Are you suggesting that

"(i) If some people do not understand how an automatic gearbox works, then
(ii) the car they attempt to drive will not work.
(iii) Therefore, if automatic gearboxes cannot be explained, but they work, then we should accept that God made them"?

OK Godexists, do you  believe that the explanation for lightning is (1) that God directly creates it? i.e. "Lightning is God's thunderbolts." or (2) the polarization mechanism in clouds is the widely accepted cause and we should go with this until  it is either proven or a better explanation arises?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1348
  • Darwins +101/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #107 on: July 08, 2012, 07:03:33 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

1) So . . . there is no hell for sinners?

2) My question IS relevant.  Allow me to rephrase it again, and maybe then you'll stop dodging it:  Who is 'more good' in your opinion: someone who does what is right because that's what he's told to do, or because it's what he knows is the right thing to do?

3) Many regulars on this board are getting very aggrivated that you aren't "all ears" as you've claimed.  You came here with biases based on what non-atheists believe atheists think (understandable), and when you ask about these beliefs, you reject or ignore the answers when they don't conform to your biases (inexcusable).  Please, please stop.  Accept what is being said as sincere, and examine it with intellectual integrity--TRY to put your bias aside.

3b) for the record, I don't "wish there was no god."  In fact, I wish there WAS.  It would make things so much easier!!  It took years of self-searching and painful (HONEST) reflection to get from being on the cusp of priesthood to where I am today.  So, when you make blanket statements about what I believe/think/wish/have for a worldview that are simply false, it's offensive.  It makes me ANGRY when I read your posts, and it makes me want to call you names and belittle your thought processes as it seems you're doing to mine.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 07:13:32 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 #108 on: July 08, 2012, 07:10:49 AM »
Quote
the chance of life is 100% or am I wrong.

No, you are perfectly right.

the probability of the universe supporting life is precisely 1:1.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_hurben/univ.html

Quote
"Suppose you are dragged before a firing squad consisting of 100 marksmen. You hear the command to fire and the crashing roar of the rifles. You then realize you are still alive, and that not a single bullet found its mark. How are you to react to this rather unlikely event?"

'Of course you do not observe that you are dead, because if you were dead, you would not be able to observe that fact!' However, this does not stop you from being amazed and surprised by the fact that you did survive against overwhelming odds. Moreover, you would try to deduce the reason for this unlikely event, which was too improbable to happen by chance. Surely, the best explanation is that there was some plan among the marksmen to miss you on purpose. In other words, you are probably alive for a very definite reason, not because of some random, unlikely, freak accident."

"So we should conclude the same with the cosmos. It is natural for us to ask why we escaped the firing squad. Because it is so unlikely that this amazing universe with its precariously balanced constants could have come about by sheer accident, it is likely that there was some purpose in mind, before or during its creation. And the mind in question belongs to God."

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 #109 on: July 08, 2012, 07:13:45 AM »
  • Not all atheists make the assertion "God definitely does not exist."
i know. neither did i assert the contrary.



Quote
  • Relatively few atheists are nihilists.  Some, Myself included, are humanists.
how is one related to the other ?

[/list]

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #110 on: July 08, 2012, 08:26:24 AM »

The topic of this thread is :

Why should I give a hill of beans if the universe was created, as opposed to "simply came to be, just because?"  What difference in my everyday life does that make?

It is not a thread for re-arguing naturalism vs voodoo.  We already have a thread for that.  I understand the discussion is naturally going to wander, but let's please try to get back on track.

Assuming there is a god that "started it all", but is not needed to explain anything else, so what?  Godexists, can you answer that without a link, please?

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5262
  • Darwins +601/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #111 on: July 08, 2012, 08:56:21 AM »
No, you are perfectly right.

the probability of the universe supporting life is precisely 1:1.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_hurben/univ.html

Quote
"Suppose you are dragged before a firing squad consisting of 100 marksmen. You hear the command to fire and the crashing roar of the rifles. You then realize you are still alive, and that not a single bullet found its mark. How are you to react to this rather unlikely event?"

'Of course you do not observe that you are dead, because if you were dead, you would not be able to observe that fact!' However, this does not stop you from being amazed and surprised by the fact that you did survive against overwhelming odds. Moreover, you would try to deduce the reason for this unlikely event, which was too improbable to happen by chance. Surely, the best explanation is that there was some plan among the marksmen to miss you on purpose. In other words, you are probably alive for a very definite reason, not because of some random, unlikely, freak accident."

"So we should conclude the same with the cosmos. It is natural for us to ask why we escaped the firing squad. Because it is so unlikely that this amazing universe with its precariously balanced constants could have come about by sheer accident, it is likely that there was some purpose in mind, before or during its creation. And the mind in question belongs to God."
When I click on the link and read the summary, it does not agree with the implication of that example.  It states, "The modern Argument from Design (AD), which is based on the so-called "fine-tuning" of the physical constants of the universe, is examined. It is argued that current knowledge of the origin of our universe is far too limited to lead to any demonstration of the existence of a "designer." While some recent philosophical ruminations on this topic do allow us to draw a number of conclusions about firing squads, they do not necessarily provide much insight into the nature of the cosmos."

Furthermore, immediately after the quote you gave above[1], the paper continues by saying, "What, if anything, is wrong with the modern AD as outlined above? I believe that it has three problems which deserve attention. The first involves the ubiquitous reference to "fine-tuning" throughout the course of the argument. The second involves the careless use of probabilities and meaningless statistics. The third is an error common to arguments from analogy, where two entities which share some characteristics are therefore supposed to share some other, less obvious characteristic."

To briefly summarize those three problems:
  • Fine-tuning is the conclusion that advocates of 'design' want to reach.  However, they almost invariably assume that fine-tuning must have happened in order to reach that conclusion, thus it's a circular argument.  More importantly, nobody has ever demonstrated that these constants can have different values.  In order to successfully make an argument for fine-tuning, one must first be able to demonstrate that the constants of the universe can be changed at all.
  • Even assuming that the universal constants are changeable, how can we come up with any reasonable conclusion about the likelihood of reaching certain values through chance?  To use the dice example given in the paper, we know that it's possible to get values from 2-12 by rolling 2d6, but we also know that certain rolls are more likely (7 is much more likely to be rolled than 2 or 12), which we can calculate easily enough since we know what dice we're rolling.  But what if we couldn't tell how many sides were on the dice we were rolling?  It would thus be impossible for us to accurately calculate the range of possible values and the likelihood of those values.  For the firing squad, we don't know whether 100 marksmen, or a single blind man with a musket[2] better represents the probabilities of the constants coming out the way they did.  In short, to successfully make an argument for fine-tuning, one must also be able to accurately calculate how the constants would play out in other possible universes - to be able to tell how many shooters there are, what weapons they're using, whether they're handicapped in some fashion, how many prisoners there are, even if there's obstructions between the shooters and the prisoners.
  • Finally, the inductive argument used here doesn't work.  It's like the common example of how long it would take monkeys banging on typewriters to produce a play from Shakespeare.  All we can really deduce from that argument is that monkeys are very very unlikely to produce great plays.  Similarly, the only thing that can be concluded from this example of a firing squad is that a prisoner will not escape death by shooting without a conspiracy among the shooters.  There is no reasonable way to deduce anything about the universe from either example, or a whole slew of others.

Finally, Godexists, you've proven beyond any reasonable doubt with this example that you don't do anything more than a very trivial look at the sources you use before you quote and cite them.  It would have been extremely easy to tell with five minutes perusal of that paper - even one minute - that it was eminently unsuitable to your purposes, given that it was focused on pointing out the flaws with the firing squad example you borrowed from it.  It is not unreasonable to expect you to read the sources you use before you pull quotes out of them, yet you somehow managed to miss what the paper was actually about, or else thought that nobody would go to read your source and discover just how truly bad a selection it was on your part.

Personally, I find your attitude in threads like this to just be sad.  You've accused everyone who disagrees with you of being unwilling to accept the evidence that you claim supports your contention of design, of having to do anything and everything to keep their worldview intact despite that evidence, yet the only stuff you can actually provide consists of arguments from incredulity which are easily punctured, such as this firing squad example.  And to make matters worse for yourself, you apparently missed the extremely obvious fact that the paper you quoted from was devoted to rebutting said example.

You have no business participating in discussions like this until you prove yourself capable of reading the sources you quote from.
 1. attributed to William Lane Craig
 2. or something else entirely, such as having hundreds of prisoners all facing the firing squad at once
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 09:09:27 AM by jaimehlers »

Offline bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1459
  • Darwins +55/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #112 on: July 08, 2012, 09:48:04 AM »
Here, (emphasis mine.)
Quote from: godexists
But rather blinded by their wishful thinking, no God to exist, for whatever reason.
This will probably go right over your head, as you do seem to be seriously lacking in the grey matter. However I will try to put it as simply as I can.

For any atheist to say with certainty that no god exist would be foolish, as we cannot possibly know. So no atheist would say no god exists even though we can be 99.999% recurring that one doesn't. All an atheist does is lack believe in your claim that a god does exist, the onus is and will always be on you and your kind to prove one does. Not for the atheist, to prove one doesn't. It would be nonsensical to try to prove a negative.

Quote from: godexists
the odds of a life permitting universe by chance has been calculated to be one to 10^173. Atheists believe chance is a perfectly suited mechanism to explain the fine tuning.
This may help, though I doubt you will understand it, but it is dumbed down for people of your ilk.
Quote
Cornflake analogy
Dr Robert Stovold proved that "Sandwiched between a plagiarised biography and biased references are several canards from the Creationist canon, such as  “evolution is simply a matter of chance”, and “the complexity of living things requires a designer”.  He has refuted both lies with an analogy that He has used for years, it took the form of an amusing conversation he once had with a Creationist:

Creationist: Design requires a designer – it couldn’t arise by random chance!
Me: Would you say that order requires an orderer?
Creationist: Yes.
Me: So why is it that all the small cornflakes tend to settle at the base of the box?  Do you think it’s because God put them there?
Creationist: No – it must be, well, gravity pulling the small flakes down.
Me: Wouldn’t gravity have pulled the large flakes down as well?  Why do the small flakes fall further?
Creationist: I don’t know.
Me: It’s because small flakes fall through large gaps, but large flakes can’t fall through small gaps.  The flakes sieve themselves.  Random shaking of the box coupled with a non-random filtering law (which we might call “the furthest-falling of the smallest” or “the persistence of the largest”) leads to an ordering of flakes over time, with no intelligent input required.  Random shaking is analogous to random mutation, and “the survival of the fittest” (Natural Selection) is analogous to “the persistence of the largest”.  Cornflakes and living things are both self-ordering systems, filtering out smaller flakes and deleterious mutations respectively.  Cornflakes become more organised over time, and organisms become better-adapted.
Creationist: There must be more to it than that?  There must be!  There has to be!
[Walks away scratching his head....]
A more detailed refutation of Comfort’s nonsense is beyond the scope of this blog, but will appear in a future print edition of The Freethinker.
http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/11/30/on-the-origin-of-specious-arguments/
Dr Robert Stovold"
 
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7314
  • Darwins +171/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #113 on: July 08, 2012, 11:44:44 AM »
Awesome!  Never heard the cornflake analogy before.  Thanks for sharing.

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 #114 on: July 08, 2012, 12:29:09 PM »
Give me a break.  Hitler was not a masochist because masochists like having pain inflicted on them, and there is no record whatsoever of anything like what you insinuate here.

http://www.angelfire.com/ga4/goworld78/adolf_hitler.html
Quote
Hitler fit the category of a sado-masochist (one who switches between both roles) by inflicting pain or humiliation on Geli, or having her do the opposite with him.

Quote from: Godexists
No, they do not have the same right to live as humans do.  They should not be killed needlessly, but people have to eat something in order to survive

they can be vegetarians......


Quote
, and one of the animals we use for food is the cow.  Before you try to pull out this "but they evolved just like humans did, aren't they the same" argument you keep trotting out, that in no way makes them the equals of humans.

why not ?


Quote
See above.  Culture and civilization are things that humans produce;

thats why humans are above animals ?

Quote from: Godexists
So what ? arent they still living beings, having the rights to live ? According to your logic, is it alright to kill Orang Utans ?  Endangered species of extinction ?
Orangutans are protected by laws that humans passed to protect them.  If we passed a law protecting cows from being slaughtered to provide meat to feed people, then the same argument would apply there.  But it doesn't apply; the fact that something is an animal that lives gives it no special privileges or exemptions.  It's the rules that humans make that do that, if anything does.

so its all subjective and relative, then.



Quote
I'm not the right person to ask.  And it isn't a matter of teaching you, it's a matter of you observing and listening to atheists.

well, i actually think you are indeed the right person to ask, since it was you that made the acusation. please clarify.

Quote from: Godexists
Morality is not needed in the whole animal world, for animals, that even live socially in groups, to survive. Why does it exist solely within the human race ?
What makes you think morality doesn't exist in other animals?  I watched a really phenomenal nature video filmed on an African savannah of some lionesses who stampeded a herd of buffalo (or whatever they're called in Africa) and took down a calf.  The lionesses had to cooperate in order to keep a crocodile from taking the calf away from them, and then the rest of the herd came back and literally drove the lionesses off to rescue the calf.  Both of those serve as examples of morality in animals; the lionesses had to cooperate in order to hunt effectively, and the herd came back to rescue the calf.  There's other examples of morality in animals, too, it just takes a bit of effort to look for them.

thats just instinctive behavior for survival. for morality to exist, someone must be able to exercise free will.

Quote from: Godexists
The point is that the way she lived was not representative of atheists.  Think about it; if her lifestyle was not representative of atheists as a whole, then why would you assume that her behavior was in any way representative of atheists either?

so do you want to assert, there is a common ground of atheistic behavior ? if so, what is it ?

Quote from: Godexists
You don't need a "higher power" to set the rules in order to have rules to live by and to get others to agree with them.  It's really that simple.

yep. thats what Assad is doing as well.


Quote
The very fact that atheists, who strongly disavow the existence of any such higher power, have a moral framework that they live by is very strong evidence that no such higher power is needed at all.

Neither is that the quest....


 
Quote
There are lots of things which can create an external moral framework, too, from the tribe on up.  You don't need some kind of absolute universal source of morality for morality to exist, which is good because there isn't any such source.

Prove it.


Quote
Nihilism is not the logical consequence of atheism.  Nihilism is the logical consequence of discarding one's moral framework.


From the exact moment, that this framework can be whatever someone wants it to bem, nihilism enters the door.....


Quote
As for the Papuas, I can state quite clearly that they are wrong, because they do not kill and eat their own tribe members.

Based on what can you say, your view is above theirs ?


Quote
It would be insane to do so; their tribe would come apart if they tried to establish such a custom.

There are tribes, that behave so, killing and eating their enemies, for centuries.


 
Quote
Therefore, their attitude that it's right to do so to other people is because they do not consider other human beings to be people.  In other words, it is inconsistent because they only apply it outside of their own tribe.  For morality to be consistent, it must apply both inside one's social groupings and outside them.  That's as close to objective as it's possible to get in reality.

thats just your arbitrary determination.


Quote
You do realize that almost every ancient tribe based its morality on the deities it believed in, right?  Who are you to say that their gods never existed, when you claim that your own god exists?

try dodgint the point i made.... i see....

Quote
In any case, the fact that a Central American or South American tribe had customs like ritual sacrifice in no way makes those customs right.  However, that is not the same as saying those customs did not have a purpose.  Ritual sacrifice of defeated warriors was a way to keep enemy tribes in line, as they would know that if they fought again and lost, they would become still weaker.  I understand why they did it, but I can still say it was wrong of them to do it because of the harm it did those other tribes, as well as the inevitable harm that was done to their own tribe when they later fell to their enemies.

based on what moral standard can you say, harm people of other tribes is wrong ? you are just making things up.


Quote
Yes, I certainly can say they were morally wrong, because they did things which were not morally consistent.

what is your objective parameter, to say what is objectively morally consistent, what is not ?


Quote
I have been doing so through my entire time in this thread.

you have just made up arbitrary standards. If someone thinks, the oposit of yours is what suits best as a moral code, you have no instance to say, the counterpart is wrong.


 
Quote
If you are not able or willing to pay attention, then so be it, but you lose the right to keep claiming that I have not done so.

I am quit paying attention. Ist however just a fact , that you do not convince.


Quote
A group of people who regularly attack and kill members of other tribes is not what I'd call "living together peacefully".

amongst their community they do so. that is what counts.



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 #115 on: July 08, 2012, 12:30:26 PM »


For any atheist to say with certainty that no god exist would be foolish, as we cannot possibly know. So no atheist would say no god exists even though we can be 99.999% recurring that one doesn't. All an atheist does is lack believe in your claim that a god does exist, the onus is and will always be on you and your kind to prove one does. Not for the atheist, to prove one doesn't. It would be nonsensical to try to prove a negative.


thats not what i asked for in this thread.