LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksDepends on which I your talking about .Originally Posted by Hoonigan
m
Depends on which I your talking about .
m
Hi guys, sorry for the delay.
There's a lot to comment on here.
For now I just want to speak generally about the point of this thread - which was not to try to prove the truth of the Christian viewpoint, but rather, it was to look at the rules of analysis applied to theistic worldviews and to see if they are applied across the board, or, when they are, to see what results from that.
That is to say - theistic worldviews get criticised for logical inconsistency or irrationality. However, this implies that those who are making the criticism believe worldviews are important (or else why criticise?) and should be logically consistent (otherwise why make the point?). Additionally, critics of theistic worldviews usually (always?) argue from the point of a naturalistic worldview.
If this is the case, the question I wish to ask all those who are critical of theism is, if you do truly care about logical consistency, and believe that worldviews important, and if you come from a naturalistic viewpoint (or whatever your viewpoint is), do the beliefs you adhere to meet your own criteria, have you reasoned them through and been as critical of them as you are of theism?
If not, do you really think worldviews matter, do you really care about logical consistency, are you really concerned with being faithful to naturalism, or is just that you dislike theism for one ore more particular reasons?
I'll ask some questions/address some of the views posted individually. If someone would rather I didn't they can let me know. I have no intention to cause offence.
If morality is something that changes, then slavery is actually morally neutral. It's only wrong or right if we decide it is, but there's nothing essentially wrong with it. Morality becomes legality. That is, whereas morality is seen as guiding law, in this case, morality and law become essentially the same thing - people saying something is wrong because they say it is.
The question is, if morality is something we create, what is the natural basis for society to decide what is wrong and what is right - or is it purely arbitrary?
Last edited by Galant; 13-02-2012 at 12:11 PM.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
The views of those who aren't religious have the option of been rational, debatable, peer reviewable.
No ideas are sacred, nothing is taken for granted, that allows us to say that rape in marriage is wrong. Or capital punishment for disobeying ones farther is foolish. But of course there will be people who think otherwise, that is why I say it becomes a reasoned debate.
In the US at present there are many who wish abortion to be illegal under all circumstances. For them there is no debate, they refuse to look at scenarios such as where the child poses a clear danger the host.
Things like stem cells, rather than having intelligent discussions its all a case of "its dun banned in meh book", condoms say, the stance of the Pope is killing people. We know this is very likely based on studies of condom use, yet, the church refuses to have a discussion about it because some sky fairy nonsense that has no actual evidence becomes the core.
This is the kind of thing that hurts, emotionally, someone who is Atheist, because there is no debate, no reason, only pain and suffering at the hands of some zealot, pious few.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
i would answer your last question first, as i think it is a very comforting thought that there is a supreme divine being watching everything and in control so at times when you have hit a dead end in your life and can't do much, you still remain hopeful.
I think this answer explains that i believe in the existence of God
I did mention that the point of this thread isn't to debate the truth of theism but to take a look at whether critics of theism who issue their arguments in the name of reason and logic also apply the same, apparently laudible, scrutiny, to their own positive belief system.
In short, do they, we, you practise what they preach?
For the sake of not seeming evasive I will address your points:
Those who are religious also have the option of being rational, debatable and peer reviewable. In Christian circles we call it 'accountability' both in behaviour and doctrine. If you're talking about some form of Scripture not being peer reviewable, whilst we certainly couldn't really rewrite the Bible (or other book) we remain free to use our judgement to evaluate it and see if it does offer the truth it or other claims. Theists like myself argue simply that the Bible, when read and understood properly, does give a logical, coherent, good teaching. The issue is quite complex because it involved the evaluation of something which in the end we look to for teaching. The simplest analogy I can give is that of a parent and child. The parent can give good, sound teaching and instructions to the child. The child is able to receive that teaching, and in their limited way exercise their reason to evaluate it and act upon it. The child can reject the teaching or can accept it as truth received rather than approved. The parent remains the authority, with the greater understanding, and the child the one who learns, and yet, as they learn they understand more.
Marital rape is wrong - a reasoned debate. In line with the thesis of this thread - upon what basis does the reasoning take place? If nothing is taken for granted, how is it you are able to say such an action is wrong? Surely to say that, you have to take for granted, at least, the notion that some things are absolutely, wrong or right - that there is a truth to be discovered by the reasoning? If truth does not already exists then truth 'discovered' in debate is actually created and, therefore, morality is relative and therefore we haven't actually learned anything or grown in any way, we just changed our minds. (Just in case anyone was wondering, I do believe marital rape is wrong and I believe it is actually wrong, not just wrong because I say so).
Your stance on the American pro-life crowd is just flat wrong. There might be some who believe abortion is wrong simply because someone told them so, or because it says some in some manifesto or other. However, the vast majority or the pro-life crowd believe abortion is wrong for very specific reasons. They might be unmovable on their position but they are unmovable because having reasoned it through they have come to an unmovable position - and not because they are unthinking. Failure to understand that might be an indicator that you yourself haven't considered the reason of their argument or the question itself, or perhaps the nature of reason - just because some one disagrees with you doesn't mean they are unreasoning fools. A simple rebuttal to what might seem to you an obvious decider in the case is this: if the life of the mother matters and should be preserved, shouldn't the same concern be applied to the life of the child. In which case, how do you decide which life to forfeit? I assume the simplicity of your answer point comes from a belief that an unborn baby isn't alive as a human being - but that is the central question - and a rather important one if the human right to life means anything. Having said all that, although many pro-lifers are religious, many are not. This whole topic doesn't necessarily have anything to do with theism, unless, in fact, you find that theistic beliefs, particularly Judeo-Christian ones actually lead to a greater respect for and defense of the right to life. (But now I'm just being provocative).
Still, the whole notion that reasonable debate does not take place within, or come from, theists is ridiculous. There is book after book, debate after debate, article after article discussing these things.
As for the last comment, I'm sorry if you have felt hurt by theists, somehow, but I honestly think you've got an erroneous, caricatured view of us if you think we're just fanatical zealots causing pain. There are unreasoning, wicked people everywhere of every type.
If I may refer back to your original post here, The Animus, you asked said I assumed that any of this mattered to you. You're right, I did. If logical coherency and reason matter to you, then surely the logical coherency of your own views matter also? If they don't, then such things don't matter, and we may all go on as we please feeling whatever emotions come along and praising or grumbling accordingly, yet understanding nothing. If they do, matter then what I am curious to know is have you applied that reason to your own views, do your beliefs exist because you reason them through? If not, perhaps it is unfair to apply one standard to theists but another to yourself?
Last edited by Galant; 13-02-2012 at 03:55 PM.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
That's not my perspective on consistency or irrationality.
It's more like this .... there's an assertion in many theistic claims that God is infallible and that a Holy Book is the Word of God.
So .... if God is supposed to be infallible and the book contains actual errors, then either God isn't infallible, or the book isn't the unadulterated Word of God. In which case, it begs the questions ....
- which of those is it?
- if just one thing is wrong from a perfect, all-seeing, all-knowing infallible God, he's not perfect. So what else is wrong?
If God is omnipotent and otherwise all-perfect, both his rules for living, and his method of getting them to us ought, to be perfect, or the game is loaded.
Most do, but you still get biggoted intolarence, its just they have no place to hide. If you dislike gays you have to create reasoned arguments which lay bare predjuice. A christian couple can argue its "against their religious beliefs", Why I ask? no answer comes. That is what I find most disgusting.But when people pick and choose segments of the bible, doesn't that undermine the crediability of the whole? If we're not going to believe that two of every animal went on an arc, why would believe in the Resurrection?
Because no one considers it a truth, they consider it an opinion, in the same way that its my opinion its wrong, there are others who disagree.
If I had a religion called Stupidology, which believes in channeling alien soles say, but one important mandate is that I'm allowed to rape at will within marrage, what if that was where morals where derived? How could you say such a thing was wrong? Its because you'd form arguments about the philosophy of my actions impacting someone else negatively. There is no need for any god to explain that, the explaination of "its wrong because the book says so" or better yet "its wrong because you'll be punished, after you die" style arguments do little.
But they clearly haven't, I don't mind if they are just keeping it to themselves, but they aren't they are forcing their views on other people in a vulnerable state, in a terroristic fashion, you know how many death threats various pro life people get right?
This is the problem, they feel justified in this view, not because of scientific observations, studies imperical evidence, reasoning with as much medical understanding as we are capable. No they shun all that.
That is why I want to wipe those organisations out. If you can't see the damage that causes as a free minded learned person, then I think your jaded.
And again I'm not saying that every racist is religious, every gay basher a christ lover, just that people use it as an excuse, its completely un-acceptable.
Statistically in the states at least, atheists commit less crime, granted this figure is skewed by criminals who may claim to believe in god, but just to get help from the system they otherwise wouldn't due to the predjudice of a the religious who run it. But when your talking about morality, just look at countries which have large religious population, vs those which have a smaller percentage. Data on this matter is hard to source and wolfram alpha seems down for me here, but a couple of years ago, when I last did this, the results are shockingly conclusive that you don't need religion for a moral society.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
No offence guys but you're both completely missing the point of the thread. We can bring up arguments against theism all day long, and I don't mind answering, but as I've tried to make clear several times, it's simply not the point of this thread.
I'm asking about your beliefs about how you live your life and how you came to them. Whether you subject your own chosen belief to the same scrutiny as theism?
If you think I'm dodging your questions then please do say so, I don't mind answering them in another thread. I would like to hear about your own beliefs, and how you reasoned them and how they answer the questions that you raise about theism, where applicable.
Please.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
But you asked what we lived for, a few of us replied.
You then questioned that, asking how we are able to have morality.
We try to explain you don't need religion for such things, I try to offer suggestions that we can observe such things are not correlated, maybe even apply hypothesis that in fact, religion can create more immoral behavior.
You then say its not about such things, but yes it is, agnostics, atheists, really don't have a problem with concepts such as philosophy, if anything its possible to spend more time on such matters as there are no easy answers, which is what religion has always stuck me as, a simple distraction so one can pretend they have things figured out, and attribute reason.
Myself I don't need any of that, I can reason and justify my behviour and actions without such things.
In fact lately I've had an apiffany and am taking steps to radically change my life. One doesn't need a religious conversion, or any other such baggage to decide on such things.
Its in fact an interolance most religious people have, they can't actually comprehend thinking about something truely without one or more gods. Now I just can't understand, and I'll be honest it might be a lack of training on my part, how anyone can believe in one religion when taken with my level of understanding (a very high iq, but very dislexic, un-even if you will) how someone can believe one, but disregard another. How someone could follow jesus but not any of the other prophets, believe in one so certainly, despite all evidence been frankly pathetic.
What I mean by this is most people believe the earth is round, they accept it. There are some who don't, the flat earthers spring to mind (I've actually had an interesting conversation about human understand with the last man who walked on the moon about these people.). But the difference is huge, its very easy to demonstrate with experiments curvature of the earth, one can launch a balloon with a camera for £500 themselves, its easy to demonstrate. But still some doubt it. However it doesn't take long as an outsider, to begin to side with one group more than the others, sure the earth isn't exactly round, but I can appreciate the arguments of conventional theory more than the flat earthers!
Given the way all thiests argue so pasionately, with no real evidence, one large group has to be wrong. No matter how it is cut. It's very hard to put Christanity as any more valid than say Scientology, even thou I personally believe the latter to be a dangerous made up cult.
The point I'm making is been athiest frees your mind to make better decisions, such as how to live ones life, how to remember those who are dead, I for instance find the whole "comforting" notion that they will be in heaven a distasteful lie, but then again I'm awfully good at logic (apparently).
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
I suspect most Christians - inherit their God from their family / environment rather than having free will to discover on their own .
Any data for this ?
m
unfortunately, what I feel i should stand for, what I feel i stand for, and what i stand up for, are often to far apart.
I am a great believer of "my time will come" and "everything will be fine in time".
I am married with a house, 2 step daughters and my own daughter, i live away from my family, i feel i should stand for family values, I feel that i stand for nothing, to keep the peace, I stand up for my wife when i feel she is wrong because quite simply, I love one thing above all others, my daughter.
I've rewrote this paragraph about 10 times, so I'm giving up.
The assumption here is about how God should or would do things, but that's a postulation. Why should God do something one way and not another?
We have to be careful with our assumptions of how things should be or what should be done. It's a deceptively arrogant position. What if two different people have different assumptions? What if two different and opposite things would be helpful to two different people? We can never state, a priori, what someone (let alone God - conceptually) should have done. We can only look at what they have done, or appear to have done, and then ask why and for what reason.
Some reasons He could have had for not creating some sort of special divine item:
1 - Distraction/Idolatry.
Idolatry. In times past, and even today, people have spent a good deal of time chasing relics and other such things. What if God was more interested in direct relationship with people rather than lots of tasks and special items and rituals? People are often easily distracted by and obsessed with superstition and 'magic' items than in truth and love. Should a special, divine book exist, would not people flock to see it or spend their lives pondering or even fighting over it? God has said that the most important things in this life are people and Himself and that the most important way is love. The relationship is primary, focus on physical items is often a distraction.
2 - Physical Limitations.
Physical items cannot be everywhere nor can everyone have access to them. How many people would have to see that book to believe it? How many would be able to see it? Would not the question then be why didn't God make many copies of the book, or why didn't He make it available here? Again, who would have possession over it, and would there be fighting for it? It might well be highly counter-productive.
3 - Access.
If the book existed, who would read it? Would the rest just have to listen? Would you trust that what you were hearing was the real thing? How could you know? If copies were made, how could you know if they were accurate - would you trust them? Does this not lead us to the very same questions we are facing now?
I think there are a lot more problem with the notion of a 'super book' than one might imagine.
In the end, though we might ask why God didn't create some holy, shining, perfect book, can we not ask instead, why might God have done it the way He did? Is there anything to be gained from doing it this way? Is it not possible that a perfect God could choose to use 'imperfect' means to transmit His message, as long as He ensured it got where it needed to go? Might there not be a benefit in using those means if those means themselves benefit from it?
I believe God has. He sent His message through people. He has guarded it well enough that it remains intact, understandable, and in such way that requires communication with one another. Something God is deeply interested in. The Bible teaches that God's desire and intention for humanity is loving unity. I believe He knew what He was doing.
Now, if it seems like this answer suggests God was making things difficult, well, I think I am saying that. I don't think that makes it unfair. If God made it more difficult than we imagine He could have (which is also an uncertain postulation), I think He made it difficult in the way that a father makes movement difficult for his child. A father could carry his children everywhere, he's strong enough, but instead he chooses to beckon the child to himself and in so doing the child learns to walk. The child benefits from the use of his or her legs, will, and emotion.
Could God not have more in mind that simply, the 'easiest way', when He chose how to act?
Proverbs says, "It is the glory of God is to conceal a matter. The glory of kings is to search a matter out."
Saracen, you're an intelligent and knowledgeable man. I challenge you to take a deep look into what the Bible teaches, find out what you can about it, look hard, beyond the shallow arguments many are content to sit at, and see if truth is not there.
Last edited by Galant; 14-02-2012 at 04:20 AM.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
fuddam (15-02-2012)
I'll give this a go. It's not a question I've ever examined in this way so there's a chance I will expose myself to criticism, scorn or ridicule. I'll take that risk.
Let's start with "how you live your life". Mostly I'd describe that as in a British way. I have a mortgage and a car, a wife and my kids go to the local school. I work Monday to Friday and in the evenings and weekends I watch TV, play on the internet and drink wine and beer.
Now let's consider "how you came to them". I believe that is mostly through emulation of the society I grew up in and conformance to the expectations of that society. I've done very few unusual or controversial things in my life. The closest I can think to one is when I gave up the (low paid, anti-social) job I had and spent 9 months travelling the backpacker's trail with the girl who is now my wife. On return to the UK I took out a career development loan, did an MSc. in Software Engineering and got myself a much better job.
OK, on to "beliefs" and "your own beliefs, and how you reasoned them". I'm a great believer in democracy. I believe that a lot of the political questions we debate are actually the moral questions that religion had control over in the past. For example, should we play Robin Hood and tax the rich to help to poor ? (sounds good to me). But what if that solution becomes corrupt and it's the hard working that get robbed to help the lazy ? (that's no good !).
I find discussing in the abstract to be quite difficult, so I'll pick an emotive topic and hope that it doesn't degrade into flames (I'm not looking at you Galant). My topic is the legal limit for abortion. This is a topic where in recent years I have changed my views. In my youth I was very pro-choice. Since becoming a parent my views have changed and I now believe unborn life is more precious than I used to. The currently limit is 24 weeks. With advances in science, doctors have managed to save babies born at 24 weeks. This makes think that the calls to discuss whether the limit should be changed are a good thing. No bad can come from a discussion had by reasonable people. However, there is a very significant risk that the discussion will be hijacked by people with hidden (or not so hidden) agendas. Myself, I'm undecided on the issue. There are a lot of good arguments why doctors shouldn't be saving babies born at 24 weeks. I have a lot of sympathy for idea that they should be allowed to die (I'm not encumbered by any fear that their souls will end up in Limbo !) I also believe that our society is a lot more mature than it used to be. There is a lot less stigma associated with unwanted pregnancy and adoption is a very viable option. Couple this with other social improvements, girls are better educated and have greater access to contraception, the morning after pill and pregnancy tests are a lot more accurate (at an earlier stage) than they were in the past. So there is probably less reason why the limit should be as late as it is.
What I wish to do is listen to the arguments made by each side, so that I can make an informed judgement about whether the limit should be reduced to 20 weeks, or 22 or left at 24. What I have great difficulty with is people who use "souls" as a reason for not killing a foetus. Once I hear the discussion becomes akin to discussing the colour of invisible unicorns !
So I think do apply at least as much reasoned thought on my own philosophy as I do on theist ideas.
I don't consider my expectations to be very severe. If you want to eat blessed wine and pretend it's blood or avoid pork or fish without scales, or kill your farm animals according to some ancient doctrine .... I'm sure we can come to some agreement on that. I don't care what you do in your house of worship, on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday ... just so long as it's legal and you keep the noise down (even that I will defer to democracy).
But praying, especially enforced praying, must be kept out of schools, hospitals and government proceedings.
I'll finish with one last idea that I strongly believe. If your philosophy (whatever that is) has any merit, then it will have the same merit at any age. There will be need to introduce it as early as possible to children (indoctrination). We don't allow the teaching of politics to children and we understand full well what the jesuits were doing when they said "give me the child to 7 and I will give you the man".
Beliefs ? None that I can think of.
I do have some rule-of-thumb inductions about the world, but that's about it.
As for fulfilling, I've never got above stage 1 or 2 with Maslow. I'll leave the fulfilment to others.
Society's to blame,
Or possibly Atari.
From http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...eismintro.html
Most skeptics take pride in their intellectual ability and like to think that they have no "beliefs." However, modern science has shown us that everyone has beliefs, since this is how our brains work. A good introduction to this field can be found in Andrew Newberg's book, Why We Believe What We Believe: Uncovering Our Biological Need for Meaning, Spirituality, and Truth. Although we would like to think that everything we believe is based upon evidence and logic, this is simply not true. In fact, we become emotionally bound to our worldview, so much so that worldview changes occur rarely, if at all. Since I am asking you to consider a worldview change, I am going to ask you to dump your emotional attachment to your worldview and consider the evidence apart from your emotional attachments.
Also here: http://www.bethinking.org/truth-tole...-of-belief.htm
or here: http://msc.gutenberg.edu/2001/02/me-and-my-worldview/
or here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view
etc etc.
ho hum.
One can never stop saying Thank You
There's no doubt that people become invested in their world view, and I would be happy to consider any alternative that is based on objective reproducible evidence.
Society's to blame,
Or possibly Atari.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote