| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/06/2008 02:58:06 PM · #476 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
... or a cleaver ploy by the powers to be to ensure adherence to prescribed rules and regulations. See what happened to those two schmucks who failed to listen... well if you do the same you will be damned for eternity.
Yep, I can see where one would be prone to listen.
Ray |
That's a whole other thread, though; Church as Lawgiver. You gotta bear in mind what things were LIKE back in the day, with every other warlord pushing his own agenda, his own particular code, etc etc.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2008 03:08:05 PM · #477 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
... or a cleaver ploy by the powers to be to ensure adherence to prescribed rules and regulations. See what happened to those two schmucks who failed to listen... well if you do the same you will be damned for eternity.
Yep, I can see where one would be prone to listen.
Ray |
That's a whole other thread, though; Church as Lawgiver. You gotta bear in mind what things were LIKE back in the day, with every other warlord pushing his own agenda, his own particular code, etc etc.
R. |
It's not like that now?
Each denomination with their own leader, rules, agenda, code, etc.
If you go against their way, they may not chop your head off or stone you, but they will definitely cast you out.
The threat of say...Protestants ganging up and going to war with the Baptists is pretty small, but each promotes their way as the way.
Message edited by author 2008-08-06 15:21:39. |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 03:11:23 PM · #478 |
Originally posted by Buckeye_Fan:
I'm of the school of thought that all reasoning is based not only on logic but emotion also. If someone is irrational, they are usually emotionally unstable and illogical. IMHO, I think it goes hand in hand. |
Emotions are responses to immediate stimuli (happy, sad, mad, etc.). Reason dictates how one will respond to the stimuli, if at all. But, if one allows reason to be controlled by emotion, then one is not necessarily making the most rational decision. Emotions can change quickly, again depending on momentary stimuli. Making rash decisions based on quickly changing emotions is not rational. Sometimes the decisions can turn out well but this can also be attributed to luck.
Often, people can be momentarily irrational due to overwhelming stimuli that causes excessive emotion. Doesn't mean they are unstable or illogical, only that they lack the faculty for reason at that time. For example, if Jane is charged by a bear in the woods and she runs away screaming, her emotion has taken control of her reason. |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 03:31:34 PM · #479 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
God gave man an earthly paradise and man screwed up. Result: paradise lost, welcome to reality." Take a good look around you; can you deny this is the case? |
Take a good look around in 6,000BC when that was supposed to have occurred... no global warming, no air/water/ground/light pollution, plenty of healthy fish and game, no nuclear weapons or even gunpowder. Nope, I'm not seeing a paradise lost... unless of course you meant some imaginary, unknown paradise that must have been even better. I can't really comment on imaginary things.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's called "metaphor" and the Book is full of metaphors and parables, putting wisdom into a form unsophisticated people might be able to understand/appreciate. |
Two problems: first, that "tidy path" of literalism is exactly what many Christians in the U.S. believe actually happened. Not metaphor, but real, historical events. Second: There's a lot more than metaphor going on if we are to assume that Jesus had to atone for our monumental sin of screwing up paradise in some unknown way (not by munching a forbidden fruit). If it's a metaphor, then Original Sin was what exactly- the grievous error of being what we were created to be?
Message edited by author 2008-08-06 15:36:36. |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 03:33:04 PM · #480 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Please note that you are injecting the requirement for a "scientific explanation". I am not saying that because I do not a priori concede that materialistic explanations are the only rational options. |
Nor do I. Are you confusing atheism with strict materialism? For example, I believe I have a mind, but I won't find anything made of "mind substance" that will prove beyond a doubt that I have a mind. Nor do I discount that eventually, some measurement will be available to us that will somehow "show" us mind. Same for dreams. I dream, but no "dream stuff" is necessary to prove to me that I dream. The same for your rationality questions at the bottom of your post.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2008 03:35:50 PM · #481 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And if I am presented with a crisis in my life, and I pray to God to give me strength to cope with it, and this helps me attain the inner serenity I need to focus on the problem instead of running around crying that the sky is falling, is this not an answered prayer? |
Yes it is, but even you know the reasons for it. You might be interested in portions of "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris, who, strong atheist though he is, does not discount the realm of the spiritual entirely, though his definition may not be palatable to many. |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 04:22:39 PM · #482 |
Killing the Buddha, Sam Harris
Definitely thoughtful and worth a few minutes of time |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 04:45:45 PM · #483 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Killing the Buddha, Sam Harris
Definitely thoughtful and worth a few minutes of time |
Thanks, a lovely article. I'd encourage everyone to spend fifteen minutes reading it, as it seems remarkably apropos to our discussion here.
"What the world most needs at this moment is a means of convincing human beings to embrace the whole of the species as their moral community."
and
"Certainty without evidence is necessarily divisive and dehumanizing." (Maybe my new signature.)
and this one, just for Robert ;-)
"There is a reason that we don̢۪t talk about 'Christian physics' or 'Muslim algebra,' though the Christians invented physics as we know it, and the Muslims invented algebra. Today, anyone who emphasizes the Christian roots of physics or the Muslim roots of algebra would stand convicted of not understanding these disciplines at all."
and lastly
"...There is much more for us to understand about how the mind can transform itself from a mere reservoir of greed, hatred, and delusion into an instrument of wisdom and compassion." |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 06:40:11 PM · #484 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I, personally, think it's "unreasonable" to assume that all the amazing complexity of life on earth, indeed of the cosmos itself & entire, came together out of nothingness. |
Yet you're OK with the idea that a magical, invisible being caused it to come together out of nothingness? You are left with exactly the same problem PLUS a supernatural element. FWIW, I don't assume there was nothingness to begin with. |
Plus, it is quite a huge logical leap to go from "there must have been some cause for the universe to come into existence" to go to an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent being that takes an active interest in human thoughts and actions.
The most incredible and fascinating events can be demonstrated to have occurred from almost the beginning of the universe through to the current era, evidenced by endless items of physical items of evidence that explain coherently and without contradiction the process by which the Earth and life came about in this tiny part of the universe. To ignore the evidence in favour of the Sunday school tales is another example of religious doublethink.
The one thing that we don't need any more are creation stories to speculate how the universe we see around us might have come to be.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2008 06:47:51 PM · #485 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The threat of say...Protestants ganging up and going to war with the Baptists is pretty small ... |
Judging by the case of Northern Ireland, I'd say the odds may be better than you think. |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 07:28:49 PM · #486 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Killing the Buddha, Sam Harris
Definitely thoughtful and worth a few minutes of time |
Thanks, a lovely article. I'd encourage everyone to spend fifteen minutes reading it, as it seems remarkably apropos to our discussion here. |
And for those who ask why atheists are so animated about other people's sky gods:
"At this point in history, [lending tacit support to religious differences] is both morally and intellectually indefensible—especially among affluent, well-educated Westerners who bear the greatest responsibility for the spread of ideas. It does not seem much of an exaggeration to say that if you are reading this article, you are in a better position to influence the course of history than almost any person in history."
|
|
|
|
08/06/2008 07:44:29 PM · #487 |
Challenge: Propose a rational argument that posits the existence of God.
Definitions: Rational: (all from dictionary.com) 1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible. 2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense. 3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason
Reason: (I present the verb form, but you could turn it into a noun) 8. to think or argue in a logical manner. 9. to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.
Logic: 1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
Inference: b. the process of arriving at some conclusion that, though it is not logically derivable from the assumed premises, possesses some degree of probability relative to the premises.
Case: Current physical knowledge and measurement states that we live in a fine-tuned universe. Briefly stated: "The fine-tuned Universe is the idea that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different the universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is presently understood." (quote from wiki. Read the article, very informative.)
Rational, logical, possible conclusions:
1) Many universes exist. We are naturally in one that supports life. (Logical argument: "Rare events will occur if given enough time and attempts. Analogy: Winning the powerball lottery, a rare event, occurs nearly every week due to the massive number of attempts at winning.)
2) The "fine-tuning" is an illusion. (Logical argument: We do not always understand the processes behind an event. Complex events can have simple explanations. Analogy: Winning the powerball lottery may be easier than supposed if the computer choosing numbers guaranteed that the winning combination was among the tickets bought.)
3) An intelligence directed the tuning of the universe. (Logical argument: "Complicated objects and rare events we experience often have intelligent direction behind them. Analogy: If the powerball lottery were won in a week when only a single ticket was bought (ie. the numbers on the one ticket purchased were the winning numbers), it would be logical to infer the lottery was rigged.)
I believe we've done this before and I believe nobody has ever been able to deny that given the definitions above, any of the three conclusions are not "rational". One may be correct. All may be correct. None may be correct, but they are all rational.
I rest my case for cross-examination. |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 08:19:35 PM · #488 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The threat of say...Protestants ganging up and going to war with the Baptists is pretty small ... |
Judging by the case of Northern Ireland, I'd say the odds may be better than you think. |
Well, I never claimed they were zero and N. Ireland was Protestant v Catholic |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 08:32:14 PM · #489 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Challenge: Propose a rational argument that posits the existence of God.
Definitions: Rational: (all from dictionary.com) 1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible. 2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense. 3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason
Reason: (I present the verb form, but you could turn it into a noun) 8. to think or argue in a logical manner. 9. to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.
Logic: 1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
Inference: b. the process of arriving at some conclusion that, though it is not logically derivable from the assumed premises, possesses some degree of probability relative to the premises.
Case: Current physical knowledge and measurement states that we live in a fine-tuned universe. Briefly stated: "The fine-tuned Universe is the idea that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different the universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is presently understood." (quote from wiki. Read the article, very informative.)
Rational, logical, possible conclusions:
1) Many universes exist. We are naturally in one that supports life. (Logical argument: "Rare events will occur if given enough time and attempts. Analogy: Winning the powerball lottery, a rare event, occurs nearly every week due to the massive number of attempts at winning.)
2) The "fine-tuning" is an illusion. (Logical argument: We do not always understand the processes behind an event. Complex events can have simple explanations. Analogy: Winning the powerball lottery may be easier than supposed if the computer choosing numbers guaranteed that the winning combination was among the tickets bought.)
3) An intelligence directed the tuning of the universe. (Logical argument: "Complicated objects and rare events we experience often have intelligent direction behind them. Analogy: If the powerball lottery were won in a week when only a single ticket was bought (ie. the numbers on the one ticket purchased were the winning numbers), it would be logical to infer the lottery was rigged.)
I believe we've done this before and I believe nobody has ever been able to deny that given the definitions above, any of the three conclusions are not "rational". One may be correct. All may be correct. None may be correct, but they are all rational.
I rest my case for cross-examination. |
Is anybody here actually arguing this? I thought this was about the bible? I do not think many atheist would care about this topic if it ended at where you finished and not at the point where we are today. In other words, not only do people claim number 3 but they act like they know him intimately. They also claim he is omnipotent, that he created man in his own image, that he sends people to heaven or hell based on what they do in this world, etc etc. There is no reason to believe any of this and nobody would unless they came across the bible and the only way you can believe anything in that is if you submit to it via faith. That's where reason ends.
Message edited by author 2008-08-06 20:37:18.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2008 10:56:42 PM · #490 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Rational, logical, possible conclusions:
1) Many universes exist. We are naturally in one that supports life. (Logical argument: "Rare events will occur if given enough time and attempts. Analogy: Winning the powerball lottery, a rare event, occurs nearly every week due to the massive number of attempts at winning.)
2) The "fine-tuning" is an illusion. (Logical argument: We do not always understand the processes behind an event. Complex events can have simple explanations. Analogy: Winning the powerball lottery may be easier than supposed if the computer choosing numbers guaranteed that the winning combination was among the tickets bought.)
3) An intelligence directed the tuning of the universe. (Logical argument: "Complicated objects and rare events we experience often have intelligent direction behind them. Analogy: If the powerball lottery were won in a week when only a single ticket was bought (ie. the numbers on the one ticket purchased were the winning numbers), it would be logical to infer the lottery was rigged.) |
4.) A leprechaun directed the tuning of the universe. (Logical argument: "Complicated objects and rare events we experience often have intelligent direction behind them. Analogy: If the powerball lottery were won in a week when only a single ticket was bought (ie. the numbers on the one ticket purchased were the winning numbers), it would be logical to infer the lottery was rigged.)
See? That's where reason fails. It uses a fantastic, magical assumption to explain an unlikely event. You could equally substitute God, Zeus, a gnome, fairy or pixie because an assumption of intelligence offers zero evidence of its own nature, intent, or origin. You could speculate that it's invisible, intangible, unknowable and has always existed, but then believing that something could have always existed obviates the need to explain how something could have been created from nothing in the first place... it could have always existed, a possibility your own explanation requires but without any additional hocus pocus. The other two at least use explanations we know to be possible: at least one universe definitely exists, so maybe there are others; and with such an near-infinite variety of natural possibilities, even a single set of circumstances unique to our particular corner of one galaxy could have given rise to organisms intelligent enough to assume that there must be some fine-tuning going on. Analogy: If the powerball lottery were won in a week when only a single ticket was bought, it would NOT be logical to infer the ticket was poofed into existence by the sheer will of an invisible sorcerer that only your particular group was fortunate enough to discover and understand while others foolishly believe their sorcerer did the poofing.
Message edited by author 2008-08-06 23:14:14. |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 11:12:02 PM · #491 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
...leprechaun... |
No no no, it was a gnome! Blue-green with pink hair and it pooped out the universe and started playing with it, this is why we got both the cake and the calories, it is obvious! |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 12:17:39 AM · #492 |
I know it won't change minds but I find this link very interesting in terms of the scientific knowledge contained in the Bible that did not exist in the science of the day.
//www.pb.org/pbdocs/bibleac.html
and here
//www.doesgodexist.org/Charts/CheckableBiblicalAccuracy.html
Message edited by author 2008-08-07 00:30:52. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 12:27:25 AM · #493 |
| I also found this interesting which refutes the general idea that copying has introduced massive errors. //www.christianadvice.net/the_bible_accuracy.htm |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 04:48:55 AM · #494 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I know it won't change minds but I find this link very interesting in terms of the scientific knowledge contained in the Bible that did not exist in the science of the day. |
It's the Nostradamus type fallacy: Looking back you interpret things according to today's knowledge. You pick out a few examples that might barely make sense if you interpret them the right way. And you ignore all the numerous obviously flat-out wrong statements.
The Bible is a huge book. And this guy finds 12 (in words: twelve) statements in there that could be interpreted as scientifically accurate (if you are creative...)? My Bible has over 1200 pages, which means one accurate statement every 100 pages. Impressive indeed... |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 05:18:43 AM · #495 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Rational, logical, possible conclusions:
1) Many universes exist. We are naturally in one that supports life. (Logical argument: "Rare events will occur if given enough time and attempts. Analogy: Winning the powerball lottery, a rare event, occurs nearly every week due to the massive number of attempts at winning.)
2) The "fine-tuning" is an illusion. (Logical argument: We do not always understand the processes behind an event. Complex events can have simple explanations. Analogy: Winning the powerball lottery may be easier than supposed if the computer choosing numbers guaranteed that the winning combination was among the tickets bought.)
3) An intelligence directed the tuning of the universe. (Logical argument: "Complicated objects and rare events we experience often have intelligent direction behind them. Analogy: If the powerball lottery were won in a week when only a single ticket was bought (ie. the numbers on the one ticket purchased were the winning numbers), it would be logical to infer the lottery was rigged. |
Agree. Three questions:
1) Why would you choose the third explanation over the other two? Is there any evidence to suggest that it is more likely?
2) Where's the rational step to "This intelligence wants you to worship it, it has a son who was born of a virgin and is actually also his own father (and you can eat him in the form of a cracker), it does not want homosexual people to marry, etc."? How can you aquire (rationally) any knowledge about possible characteristics of this intelligence?
3) Where does this intelligence come from? Complexity does not just appear out of nowhere.
A rational person studies the evidence, forms a theory and then checks that theory against all available evidence. If there are contradictions, the theory needs to be revised. And we start over. Believers, however, acquire a theory from someone else and refuse to ever change it, independent of the evidence. You start with a belief and then start looking for matching rational explanations, not the other way around.
The problem with religion is that otherwise completely rational, intelligent, compassionate people throw all of this out the window as soon as they detect that their religion is concerned. This effect can even be shown scientifically.
One example: The Israeli psychologist George Tamarin did an experiment with more than a thousand school children between the ages of eight and fourteen. He gave them the account of the battle of Jericho in the book of Joshua:
"Joshua said to the people, 'Shout; for the Lord has given you the city. And the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the Lord for destruction ... But all silver and gold, and vessels of bronze and iron, are sacred to the Lord; they shall go into the treasury of the Lord.' ... Then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword ... And they burned the city with fire, and all within it; only the silver and gold, and the vessels of bronze and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the Lord."
Tamarin asked the children a simple moral question about this text: "Do you think Joshua and the Israelites acted rightly or not?". 66% of the children gave total approval, only 26% disagreed. Most of those approving gave religious reasons for doing so.
A control group of children was given the same text and asked the same question, but Joshua's name had been replaced by "General Lin" and "Israel" by "a Chinese kingdom 3000 years ago". In this group, only 7% approved and 75% disapproved of "General Lin's" behavior.
The children in the second group made a rational judgement based on compassion and modern morals. In the first group however, rational thought and compassion were disabled because their religious thinking took over. And it made them condone genocide.
Many religious people (and some of the participants in this discussion seem to be among them) would find ways to justify anything if they considered it to be associated with their religion. And this is what makes religion so dangerous and such a big obstacle to peaceful relations among the people of this planet.
Message edited by author 2008-08-07 05:20:51. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 05:35:58 AM · #496 |
This is pretty desperate stuff. It relies on either an incredibly stretched reading of the words with the benefit of hindsight or inaccurate recasting of what was known at the time of writing (eg globe as a sphere rotating in space was known by the ancient greeks).
|
|
|
|
08/07/2008 08:23:17 AM · #497 |
completely off topic but so related to OP...
Yesterday an email went out informing everyone that the parking lot next to my building would be closed August 18 through August 29. People were immediately upset and calling to complain. Two hours later another email: August 18 AND August 29. Seems someone misread or mistyped the announcement when they created the first email. One word can make a huge difference in people's lives...
|
|
|
|
08/07/2008 09:43:37 AM · #498 |
Okay, I read through the list and links and honestly, many of those are stretching it at minimum. A couple of examples:
Bible says: The continents have "floated" away from a singular original land mass.
Here:And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. and here: And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.
Proposes that the previous belief was: Each continent was autonomous (until 1970). [This is untrue]
Bible says: The North is empty (our North Pole points out of our galaxy).
Here: Job 26 7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
Proposes that the previous belief was: Seeing a few stars to the North refuted this idea until 1932.[What??]
Bible says: Human body can be opened for surgery.
Here: Genesis 2 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Proposes that the previous belief was: First operations done secretly because populace threatened doctors.
[This is patently untrue - Egyptians were removing organs, and patients lived, well before Old Testament was written]
Bible says: Hittite nation's existence.
Here: Genesis 10 15 And Canaan begat Sidon his first born, and Heth,
Here: Genesis 23 10 And Ephron dwelt among the children of Heth: and Ephron the Hittite answered Abraham in the audience of the children of Heth, even of all that went in at the gate of his city, saying,
Here: Genesis 25 9 And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before Mamre;
Proposes that the previous belief was: Denied until 1906. [The archeological find named after the Biblical Hittites has not been proved to be the actual site of the biblical Hittites. The archeologists that found the site named them after the Hittites in the Bible.]
Anyway, my point is, please don't believe something just because someone wrote it. Investigate further - always try to get to the truth. You might find yourself agreeing with what is written but at least you now have reason behind your belief rather than just belief. The list from that website goes on, some of the claims being downright odd, some of the corresponding bible verses don't seem to relate at all to the subject at hand. Of course, as a 'non-believer' I might not be reading it correctly but, there is stretching it and there's streeeetching it... |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 10:22:07 AM · #499 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I rest my case for cross-examination. |
I don't believe that your conclusions are substantively reasonable. I am left with the feeling that your conclusions, in bold, are non sequiturs, and do not necessarily follow your logical arguments in parantheses -- which appear to be propositions in themselves, and not any kind of argument.
However, let's take the seminal one, the third, and suppose that you've concluded that an intelligence has directed the universe because complicated objects and rare events often have intelligent direction behind them.
This is an argument from a false cause: cum hoc ergo propter hoc. There is no requirement for us to correlate the cause for the appearance of complicated objects such as watches with the cause for the appearance of a complicated universe. It is, in effect, a logical fallacy. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 11:18:52 AM · #500 |
I'll try to address the three repliers to my post on a rational supposition for God:
Sam - Sam appears to agree it is rational, but thinks the others are more likely in his opinion. That's fine. I was just showing it could be a rational postulate.
Shannon - Shannon is trying to show the argument is not rational by adding on extra qualities to God that seem ridiculous. Spurious (there's that word coming up again). I am not giving God qualities, only postulating that he exists.
Louis - umm, I don't know Latin. I agree that there is no requirement to correlate the complicated objects with intelligence, but there is a possibility. It's an argument from experience. We see such a correlate all the time. I'm not here to PROVE God exists, I'm only here to prove a rational argument postulating God exists.
Yanko - read the posts from yesterday. All three of the above and, I believe, Dahkota, pretty well posted that belief in God is irrational.
Message edited by author 2008-08-07 11:19:42. |
|
