| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
joshuas3521
Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Joined: 19 Dec 2007
Posts: 2237
Local time: 10:41 PM
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
|
 Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 8:09 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| Missionary wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | Missionary wrote: | science is selling it all goes back down the tree to one single organism. I don't buy it, they haven't proven it, the evidence doesn't exist and it's nothing but a theory.
|
So is gravity just a theory. But why can we build airplanes that fly?
So is quantum mechanics just a theory, but how does the picture form on your TV screen?
So is relativity a theory, but why do we use it when we buil the LHC?
And so is evolution a theory, but why do we use it to make antibiotics?
| Missionary wrote: |
Is Jesus the Christ?
|
There is no evidence of the existence of Jesus. See http://www.atheistforums.com/jesus-man-or-legend-official-debate-thread-t5008.html |
So, you're saying that SINCE some theories are true, THEN all theories are true? |
hahaha, no.
He is saying that you incorrectly define the word "theory". We aren't in denial that it could be wrong, but so far, evidence says otherwise.
_________________
"What I'm saying is, if God wanted to send us a message, and ancient writings were the only way he could think of doing it, he could have done a better job." --Carl Sagan
"In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move." --Douglas Adams
In memory of George Carlin. May he rest in peace.
Ignore list:
<empty> |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Missionary
Guest
Local time: 1:41 PM
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ApostateLois wrote: | | Quote: | | He does and He has. You choose by free will to ignore, reject and explain away. Such is the case of the vast majority. |
Obviously, he hasn't, or else I WOULD believe. See, that's what you don't understand. If God exists, then he knows what kind of evidence I need in order to believe in him. It is not my problem if he refuses to provide it. Maybe he doesn't want me to believe in him, or doesn't care if anyone believes in him, or doesn't exist. |
There is a predisposition that would most likely need to exist, that being faith that God exists. That's not to say any particular god, but it is to differentiate between belief in a Creator as opposed to taking a position of non-belief. Another way to say it is a person seeking truth vs. a person who is indifferent or takes up position against God.
| ApostateLois wrote: | | Quote: | | On your yardstick, I agree man doesn't have a use for it. God uses it when the day comes. You don't have to believe in God, His yardstick, or eternity for them to be true. I'm only suggesting that man has been wrong about his scientific opinions and calculations. Therefore, if he is indeed fallible, then don't follow him off a cliff. |
If you are fallible, then everything you believe about God could very well be wrong, and you're following a bunch of Christians off a cliff who also are fallible and wrong. When the blind lead the blind, they both fall into the ditch, remember? |
Yeah...I take that verse pretty seriously and as a result, don't follow a church or any particular preacher. But I also take at face value that we can know the truth and the truth will set us free. As I've said elsewhere, for me it wasn't a situation where the bible came first, then faith in God. For me, God showed up, I was saved, then He pointed to scripture.
| ApostateLois wrote: | | Quote: | | I only wish you could no how arrogant I am not, Moloth. My knowledge of God is not based on the results of measurements, experiments, and lab data. |
Exactly. It is based on faith, which is really just wishful thinking. If you had knowledge of God, you wouldn't need faith. |
Yeah you do. Faith is trusting God to lead the way even when He doesn't tell you where you're going, what you're going to do, and what's going to happen.
| ApostateLois wrote: | | Quote: | | I don't buy it, they haven't proven it, the evidence doesn't exist and it's nothing but a theory. |
Do you even KNOW what a scientific theory is? Did you know that gravity is a THEORY? Yes, the theory of gravity, perhaps you've heard of it. I will leave it up to you to look up "theory" in a dictionary and find out exactly how it applies to science. I know that's difficult, but sometimes you have to do your homework without mommy's help. |
Of course I know what a theory is. I took science, math, programming, and engineering. I spent 13 years designing and implement communications, E911, and IT systems. I understand that computer models and math fail in application and have to be reengineered in design then retrofitted in the field. And that just applies in simple projects that a person has physical hands on access to. We don't have access to 100,000 years ago or light years away. That's a fact. So we have models and math that have no reliable method that can serve as a verifiable reference or point of calibration. * YES, I'm familiar with molecular clocks...save a post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Missionary
Guest
Local time: 1:41 PM
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| joshuas3521 wrote: |
He is saying that you incorrectly define the word "theory". We aren't in denial that it could be wrong, but so far, evidence says otherwise. |
Okay so, which ones do you think are right as they stand and which ones will be refuted or modified? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joshuas3521
Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Joined: 19 Dec 2007
Posts: 2237
Local time: 10:41 PM
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Missionary wrote: | | joshuas3521 wrote: |
He is saying that you incorrectly define the word "theory". We aren't in denial that it could be wrong, but so far, evidence says otherwise. |
Okay so, which ones do you think are right as they stand and which ones will be refuted or modified? |
We don't think of any one as "right" with 100% certainty, but they are derived from the evidence that we have at hand.
In the future, most will be modified and some will be refuted as we gain more knowledge related to the respective theories. It's the way science advances. If a scientist had real STRONG objective evidence against evolution, you can bet anything that he would publish it immediately. When a new theory is devised, the first thing everybody does is try to disprove it.
_________________
"What I'm saying is, if God wanted to send us a message, and ancient writings were the only way he could think of doing it, he could have done a better job." --Carl Sagan
"In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move." --Douglas Adams
In memory of George Carlin. May he rest in peace.
Ignore list:
<empty> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Missionary
Guest
Local time: 1:41 PM
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| joshuas3521 wrote: | | Missionary wrote: | | joshuas3521 wrote: |
He is saying that you incorrectly define the word "theory". We aren't in denial that it could be wrong, but so far, evidence says otherwise. |
Okay so, which ones do you think are right as they stand and which ones will be refuted or modified? |
We don't think of any one as "right" with 100% certainty, but they are derived from the evidence that we have at hand.
In the future, most will be modified and some will be refuted as we gain more knowledge related to the respective theories. It's the way science advances. If a scientist had real STRONG objective evidence against evolution, you can bet anything that he would publish it immediately. When a new theory is devised, the first thing everybody does is try to disprove it. |
Well that's all good and stuff, but what do you do with science article that come out? Do you take them with a grain of salt or do you assume that it's factual and accurate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joshuas3521
Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Joined: 19 Dec 2007
Posts: 2237
Local time: 10:41 PM
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Missionary wrote: | | joshuas3521 wrote: | | Missionary wrote: | | joshuas3521 wrote: |
He is saying that you incorrectly define the word "theory". We aren't in denial that it could be wrong, but so far, evidence says otherwise. |
Okay so, which ones do you think are right as they stand and which ones will be refuted or modified? |
We don't think of any one as "right" with 100% certainty, but they are derived from the evidence that we have at hand.
In the future, most will be modified and some will be refuted as we gain more knowledge related to the respective theories. It's the way science advances. If a scientist had real STRONG objective evidence against evolution, you can bet anything that he would publish it immediately. When a new theory is devised, the first thing everybody does is try to disprove it. |
Well that's all good and stuff, but what do you do with science article that come out? Do you take them with a grain of salt or do you assume that it's factual and accurate? |
A science article lists its sources. If the sources are accurate, the evidence is legitimate, and the logic flows with no assumptions then it can be accepted. However, people will always replicate the experiments (mental experiments or physical ones) and search for flaws in their reasoning. There is a very strict rule in science: if an experiment cannot be replicated, it is assumed to be a fluke.
_________________
"What I'm saying is, if God wanted to send us a message, and ancient writings were the only way he could think of doing it, he could have done a better job." --Carl Sagan
"In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move." --Douglas Adams
In memory of George Carlin. May he rest in peace.
Ignore list:
<empty> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WashMDJD
Forum Leader
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 766
Local time: 7:41 PM
Location: Everett/Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Missionary wrote: | | WashMDJD wrote: | | It's a good thing there's no reason to think that your God exists - if it did, this world would be a pretty nightmarish and uncivilized place to live. |
Then the world is fine in your eyes? |
Preparing to set up another straw man, are we?
No, the world isn't fine. But the world's problems are exactly the sort of problems we should expect to see if the world is governed by wholly naturalistic causes indifferent to the plights of humans in general or individuals specifically. It is most certainly not either the paradise we should realistically expect if there is a god that genuinely cares about people, nor is it the hellish nightmare world of a God such as the one described in biblical texts.
| Missionary wrote: |
| WashMDJD wrote: | | Either you know of their truth through the observed knowledge, which according to you we can't rely on, or you know about them through revealed knowledge - the source of which necessitates a circular argument on your part. |
However, if someone claims to have had a revelation of "God" and his claim is that this being may in fact contact you? Then there's really nothing to argue. It's just a matter of whether this revelation is made to you. Then it's not about one person convincing another but rather one person that an event is taking place and that other person may experience it. |
Nice try and thanks for playing, Missionary. Suppose I approach you on the street and say, "Marduk the Destroyer visited me in a dream. He appeared before me and showed me his glory and his terrible countenance. And he loves me. He loves you, too. If you believed enough, he might appear to you too." How convincing is this that Marduk the Destroyer might appear to you? Do you believe that Marduk appeared to me? There's a good chance that I either A) imagined the experience, B) mistook something else for this experience, C) am insane and delusional, D) lying to you, or any of a host of other explanations. Do you believe that I experienced this, in light of the other possibilities? Do you believe that this same experience could happen to you?
Do you believe it when somebody approaches you and says "I went to church and during a prayer meeting, I was filled with a wonderous feeling. I know I was saved by the power of Jesus. You could get saved too!" If you believe them when they say that, you're believing their claim on some basis - either on the basis of man's knowledge or the basis of revealed knowledge. You've made clear that relying on man's knowledge is a mistake - no matter how much evidence, repeatability, or convergence of disciplines point to a conclusion - because the very next experiment might prove it wrong. The price of not being omniscient. So consistency demands that if we cannot rely on man's knowledge due to its fallibility, we cannot rely on the truth-claims you make on the basis of man's knowledge (including your observed 'signs and omens').
If on the other hand, you believed the truth claim on the basis of revelation, then you need to provide some basis (which itself does not rest upon revelation - which suffers from the circular source problem we've already been over) by which you can distinguish your revelations as true from a Sufi's claims which you say are false. Consistency demands that since they both rely on the same justification (revealed knowledge) that both must either be true or both must either be false if their sources meet the same criteria.
| Missionary wrote: |
| WashMDJD wrote: | There's no escaping the logic the way you're arguing it. Either we admit your God and every other god ever made up, or you admit that we have no reason to believe in your God or any other. Which way would you like to have it?
|
"We" shall admit nothing other than you asserted several proofs which you then proceeded to hop-scotch and pole vault over to land on your naked accusation. *shrug* Why would you even go to the trouble of setting up hoops to jump through if you were going to run around them and scream into the microphone? |
Bald assertions by someone who's yet failed to address the objection to his own argument. I set up no hoops. I parsed your own argument back to you in an organized fashion. I skipped over all of the false parts of your own argument to get to the objection that I wanted to make. You don't seem to grasp this, but all that tells me is that your grip on logic is a bit tenuous.
Would you really like me to diagram your own argument back to you again, only this time stopping to demolish each of the falsities, logical errors, and naked assumptions that I skipped over previously? Would you like me to run through each premise and sub-conclusion of your argument before reaching the ultimate and necessary conclusion of your argument that every god ever dreamed up also exists alongside your God and on exactly equal epistemological footing? I can do so if you'd like, but all it does is show your argument to be even more riddled with errors than everybody already sees it to be.
_________________
"Ne mea dona tibi studio disposta fideli,
Intellecta prius quam sint, contempta reliquas."
-Lucretius, De rerum natura
("...that my gifts here set forth for you with faithful solicitude, may not by you be contempuously discarded before they have been understood.")
"Mes amis, si j'avance, suivez-moi! Si je recule, tuez-moi! Si je meurs, vengez-moi!" --Henri de la Rochejaquelein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Missionary
Guest
Local time: 1:41 PM
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| joshuas3521 wrote: | | Missionary wrote: | | joshuas3521 wrote: |
He is saying that you incorrectly define the word "theory". We aren't in denial that it could be wrong, but so far, evidence says otherwise. |
Okay so, which ones do you think are right as they stand and which ones will be refuted or modified? |
We don't think of any one as "right" with 100% certainty, but they are derived from the evidence that we have at hand.
In the future, most will be modified and some will be refuted as we gain more knowledge related to the respective theories. It's the way science advances. If a scientist had real STRONG objective evidence against evolution, you can bet anything that he would publish it immediately. When a new theory is devised, the first thing everybody does is try to disprove it. |
Science news is my biggest problem. That's where people get their info...they just don't read research papers. LINK: http://www.atheistforums.com/evidence-of-creationism-t7699-30.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Missionary
Guest
Local time: 1:41 PM
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WashMDJD wrote: | | Missionary wrote: | | WashMDJD wrote: | | It's a good thing there's no reason to think that your God exists - if it did, this world would be a pretty nightmarish and uncivilized place to live. |
Then the world is fine in your eyes? |
Preparing to set up another straw man, are we?
No, the world isn't fine. But the world's problems are exactly the sort of problems we should expect to see if the world is governed by wholly naturalistic causes indifferent to the plights of humans in general or individuals specifically. It is most certainly not either the paradise we should realistically expect if there is a god that genuinely cares about people, nor is it the hellish nightmare world of a God such as the one described in biblical texts. |
Ok, so you clarified your observation. We've got problems here on earth. As for the text I bolded, (biblically speaking) this isn't paradise but fallen earth under a curse and ruled by the 'god of this world'; satan, who won dominion of earth at Eden. Thus, we have imperfect conditions, wars, hatred, conflict, etc. Secondly to the text I underlined, I'm not certain what you're referring to. Maybe you could elaborate?
| Missionary wrote: |
| WashMDJD wrote: | | Either you know of their truth through the observed knowledge, which according to you we can't rely on, or you know about them through revealed knowledge - the source of which necessitates a circular argument on your part. |
However, if someone claims to have had a revelation of "God" and his claim is that this being may in fact contact you? Then there's really nothing to argue. It's just a matter of whether this revelation is made to you. Then it's not about one person convincing another but rather one person that an event is taking place and that other person may experience it. |
| WashMDJD wrote: | Nice try and thanks for playing, Missionary. Suppose I approach you on the street and say, "Marduk the Destroyer visited me in a dream. He appeared before me and showed me his glory and his terrible countenance. And he loves me. He loves you, too. If you believed enough, he might appear to you too." How convincing is this that Marduk the Destroyer might appear to you? Do you believe that Marduk appeared to me? There's a good chance that I either A) imagined the experience, B) mistook something else for this experience, C) am insane and delusional, D) lying to you, or any of a host of other explanations. Do you believe that I experienced this, in light of the other possibilities? Do you believe that this same experience could happen to you?
Do you believe it when somebody approaches you and says "I went to church and during a prayer meeting, I was filled with a wonderous feeling. I know I was saved by the power of Jesus. You could get saved too!" If you believe them when they say that, you're believing their claim on some basis - either on the basis of man's knowledge or the basis of revealed knowledge. You've made clear that relying on man's knowledge is a mistake - no matter how much evidence, repeatability, or convergence of disciplines point to a conclusion - because the very next experiment might prove it wrong. The price of not being omniscient. So consistency demands that if we cannot rely on man's knowledge due to its fallibility, we cannot rely on the truth-claims you make on the basis of man's knowledge (including your observed 'signs and omens').
If on the other hand, you believed the truth claim on the basis of revelation, then you need to provide some basis (which itself does not rest upon revelation - which suffers from the circular source problem we've already been over) by which you can distinguish your revelations as true from a Sufi's claims which you say are false. Consistency demands that since they both rely on the same justification (revealed knowledge) that both must either be true or both must either be false if their sources meet the same criteria. |
In your scenario, I really wouldn't be concerned with the information and would most likely assume cookoo. The same would apply to me and our discussion. I get that. However, If "Marduk the Destroyer" contacted me directly, he would most certainly have my attention. I would probably remember the guy who I thought was crazy and what he told me, I may try to get ahold of that guy, and I would immediately begin trying to learn everything I could about "Marduk the Destroyer".
| Missionary wrote: |
| WashMDJD wrote: | There's no escaping the logic the way you're arguing it. Either we admit your God and every other god ever made up, or you admit that we have no reason to believe in your God or any other. Which way would you like to have it?
|
"We" shall admit nothing other than you asserted several proofs which you then proceeded to hop-scotch and pole vault over to land on your naked accusation. *shrug* Why would you even go to the trouble of setting up hoops to jump through if you were going to run around them and scream into the microphone? |
| WashMDJD wrote: | Bald assertions by someone who's yet failed to address the objection to his own argument. I set up no hoops. I parsed your own argument back to you in an organized fashion. I skipped over all of the false parts of your own argument to get to the objection that I wanted to make. You don't seem to grasp this, but all that tells me is that your grip on logic is a bit tenuous.
Would you really like me to diagram your own argument back to you again, only this time stopping to demolish each of the falsities, logical errors, and naked assumptions that I skipped over previously? Would you like me to run through each premise and sub-conclusion of your argument before reaching the ultimate and necessary conclusion of your argument that every god ever dreamed up also exists alongside your God and on exactly equal epistemological footing? I can do so if you'd like, but all it does is show your argument to be even more riddled with errors than everybody already sees it to be. |
Knock yourself out.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 10:41 PM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Missionary wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | Missionary wrote: | science is selling it all goes back down the tree to one single organism. I don't buy it, they haven't proven it, the evidence doesn't exist and it's nothing but a theory.
|
So is gravity just a theory. But why can we build airplanes that fly?
So is quantum mechanics just a theory, but how does the picture form on your TV screen?
So is relativity a theory, but why do we use it when we buil the LHC?
And so is evolution a theory, but why do we use it to make antibiotics?
| Missionary wrote: |
Is Jesus the Christ?
|
There is no evidence of the existence of Jesus. See http://www.atheistforums.com/jesus-man-or-legend-official-debate-thread-t5008.html |
So, you're saying that SINCE some theories are true, THEN all theories are true? |
That would be the conclusion of a 5-year old kid... How old are you?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WashMDJD
Forum Leader
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 766
Local time: 7:41 PM
Location: Everett/Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fair enough, Missionary. Here we go:
| Missionary wrote: | | WashMDJD wrote: | | But the world's problems are exactly the sort of problems we should expect to see if the world is governed by wholly naturalistic causes indifferent to the plights of humans in general or individuals specifically. It is most certainly not either the paradise we should realistically expect if there is a god that genuinely cares about people, nor is it the hellish nightmare world of a God such as the one described in biblical texts. (emphasis added) |
Ok, so you clarified your observation. We've got problems here on earth. As for the text I bolded, (biblically speaking) this isn't paradise but fallen earth under a curse and ruled by the 'god of this world'; satan, who won dominion of earth at Eden. Thus, we have imperfect conditions, wars, hatred, conflict, etc. Secondly to the text I underlined, I'm not certain what you're referring to. Maybe you could elaborate?
|
I believe if you read the material above, you’ll note that I made a distinction between the types of worlds we should expect to see given different types of ruling deities. I’ll elaborate for you. Suppose that this world were ruled by a God of ultimate kindness, justice, and love. It’s not so hard to imagine, and using our limited human faculties, we can posit some things about the structure of this hypothetical world, stopping at each decision to ask whether a world like this would typify kindness and love. Would this world have pain? Pain isn’t somehow a necessary part of life (after all, pain is the result of nociception and there are functioning animals that have no obvious nociceptors). Would this world have common, natural, senseless tragedies that kill, injure, or maim thousands? How prevalent would starvation be in this world? Would this world correctly apportion the good and bad consequences of living among people according to their good and bad deeds? Would people be able to get away with bad deeds to begin with? Would they be able to even go through with them, even if using their free will they had chosen to do so? It doesn’t take an ethicist, a writer, or an artist to realize that an imaginary world can easily be constructed which is kinder, gentler, more loving, and more just than the current one. That such can be done strongly militates against the idea of this world being under the control of such a deity, particularly when it is realized that our frail imaginations don’t have to dream up a perfectly kind and just world in order to falsify the hypothesis that we are ruled by a benevolent deity; we merely have to think of a world marginally better than this one to realize that we do not live in the best of all possible worlds.
None of that is an indictment against Christianity, since the Biblical God of Christianity typifies neither kindness, gentleness, justice, nor love – although it purports to typify these things in an Orwellian doublespeak. The God of the Bible is at best morally clueless, and is at worst a psychopathic and delusional monster, bent on reshaping the world according to its psychotic and mercurial whims or breaking it all to pieces. Let’s step back and remember that in the early books in the Old Testament, God lays down and sanctions laws for his people. These laws include prohibitions on eating shellfish, cutting one’s hair in particular ways, wearing mixed fabrics, growing fields of mixed crops, boiling goats in milk, and the incredibly bizarre order that handicapped individuals be barred from approaching a holy altar (I guess God just doesn’t like ‘cripples’, huh?). Naturally, the penalty for violating any of these is being bludgeoned to death with rocks.
On top of that, God really seems to love non-human animal sacrifices, going to great detail to lay out how they are to be conducted and emphasizing repeatedly just how much God enjoys them. The gore, the running blood, the ‘huffing’ of the ox and the wet, bubbling, sound the knife makes as it slices through the animal’s throat... God commands these things precisely because these things are all a “Sweet savor unto the Lord.” Are you picturing it? The struggling life in your hands? The toughness and rubbery resilience of the skin as you press the knife against it? That first spurt of blood as the knife bites in and hits the artery? The spray of it across the cold stone? The red blood running over the your hands as the animal bleeds to death in panic and terror? The growing heaviness and limpness of the body in your hands, struggling less and more weakly as the life pumps out of it? The hot, sweaty smell of death, blood, and dung, filling your nostrils and seemingly your whole world? The reaching of your hands down into the running blood, gathering your hands full and sprinkling the warm, sticky liquid over yourself, the altar, and the temple around you? Can you feel the blood on your body, Missionary? Can you smell it?
Have you ever been in a slaughterhouse, Missionary? Do you know that smell? I do - and it's a smell that haunts you.
These aren't the descriptions of acts carried out by vicious savages from South American jungles atop their pyramid-temples praying for rain. These are the direct orders from the Biblical God on how he wants his sacrifices, and how to make them most pleasing to him. This is what your God wants - no, craves from us, Missionary. The step from your god to something out of Indiana Jones' "Temple of Doom" is not a long one. Frankly, if that doesn't get the point across to you and make you see what a nightmarish and vile being your god would be, I'm not sure whether there's even a scrap of humanity that religion has failed to scourge from you.
Now, admittedly, depending on which sect of Christianity you belong to, these laws were set aside after Jesus’ sacrifice because the Jews were unable to live up to God’s perfect laws. That’s right – They were God's first choice for social ordering following the supposed 'Fall of Man.' The laws forbidding people to plant mixed fields are perfect. The rule forbidding cutting one’s hair or beard is perfect. The law against eating crabs is perfect. In other words, in God’s ideal world (the one we just couldn’t seem to live up to), it’s the height of moral living to nod in approval as the filthy crab-eater from down the road is dragged to the edge of town and his body subjected to enough blunt trauma via being smashed with stones that he dies. It’s just a pity that we poor human beings aren’t morally strong enough to do that. Have you ever seen a stoning, Missionary? Have you seen the results of that kind of trauma?
Do a quick search on the internet, Missionary, and you’ll find videos and photos of the results of stonings carried out in recent history. Sure, they were carried out by Muslims and not Christians, but does it bother you that in your God’s perfect world, the one we were too weak to live up to, he preferred that this be an appropriate punishment for somebody who meets with a business client on Saturday (when he should be groveling in the temple)? It ought to bother you, if you have even an ounce of compassion or moral sense.
If this world were truly run according to the dictates of your insane God, this world would be structured in such a way as to make your God’s perfect world a reality. Luckily for every last one of us - yourself included, Missionary – your God is imaginary and his ‘preferred vision of society’ only the fevered dreams of ancient barbarian warlords.
That’s why I say that this world is neither arranged in such a way as to appear governed by a benevolent deity or by the Christian God of the Bible, whose fictional works are as evil as can be conceived.
If, on the other hand, this world is governed by natural laws that have no consciousness, are entirely incapable of caring about the consequences of their application to the physical world, we would have a world much like this one, in which kindness and cruelty appear to be radically independent of desert, in which natural disasters strike people and places in ways which grow ever more predictable as science figures out why they happen, and in which the religious do not have better average lives than the nonreligious. Strangely (or not-so-strangely), this is exactly what we seem to find in the world.
| Missionary wrote: | | WashMDJD wrote: | Suppose I approach you on the street and say, "Marduk the Destroyer visited me in a dream. He appeared before me and showed me his glory and his terrible countenance. And he loves me. He loves you, too. If you believed enough, he might appear to you too." How convincing is this that Marduk the Destroyer might appear to you? Do you believe that Marduk appeared to me? There's a good chance that I either A) imagined the experience, B) mistook something else for this experience, C) am insane and delusional, D) lying to you, or any of a host of other explanations. Do you believe that I experienced this, in light of the other possibilities? Do you believe that this same experience could happen to you?
|
In your scenario, I really wouldn't be concerned with the information and would most likely assume cookoo. The same would apply to me and our discussion. I get that. However, If "Marduk the Destroyer" contacted me directly, he would most certainly have my attention. I would probably remember the guy who I thought was crazy and what he told me, I may try to get ahold of that guy, and I would immediately begin trying to learn everything I could about "Marduk the Destroyer".
|
Would you really? Supposing you had a dream the next day in which a man told you that he was Marduk the Destroyer and you felt afraid in its presence, you would believe you’d had an actual experience with the transcendent? It beggers the imagination to believe that, Missionary, even coming from you. You wouldn’t shake your head as you woke up and go ‘Wow – I’d better’d lay off the junk food before bed next time!’ and get ready for work just as you usually do? I have dreams all the time with crazy characters in them – people I’ve never met, monsters I’ve never seen, and fantastic adventures I’ve never actually been on. Are you really telling me that you think it’s a mistake to simply classify these things as dreams and move on? That’s lunacy, even next to your already ridiculous claims.
If you have the temerity to admit the possibility that the other fellow is cuckoo when he tells you of his dream experience, on what epistemological basis can you rule out those same possibilities when it comes to your own experience? I know this is skipping ahead, but you must either rest it on mans’ knowledge (which your argument claims is faulty and untrustworthy) or upon revealed knowledge (in which case you have no grounds for doubting the claim of every nutjob who comes along claiming an experience with the ‘other.’ Hence, my previous claims regarding your necessary implicit acceptance of every deity that could ever be conceived – a stance flatly contradicted and considered blasphemous by Christianity.
I don’t think I need to remind you that in God’s perfect social ordering, the whole community is required to stone you to death for that.
The rundown of your argument itself and the analysis of it will be in a following post.
_________________
"Ne mea dona tibi studio disposta fideli,
Intellecta prius quam sint, contempta reliquas."
-Lucretius, De rerum natura
("...that my gifts here set forth for you with faithful solicitude, may not by you be contempuously discarded before they have been understood.")
"Mes amis, si j'avance, suivez-moi! Si je recule, tuez-moi! Si je meurs, vengez-moi!" --Henri de la Rochejaquelein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ApostateLois
Infinity Welcomes Careful Drivers
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 2066
Local time: 11:41 AM
Location: In space, with a traffic cone
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | There is a predisposition that would most likely need to exist, that being faith that God exists. |
I have no reason to believe God exists. Why should I have faith in something that doesn't exist? Should I have faith in other things that don't exist--unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, etc? Maybe if I just had faith that they exist, they would show me that they exist and then I could believe they exist. That's how it works, right?
| Quote: | | Yeah...I take that verse pretty seriously and as a result, don't follow a church or any particular preacher. |
How about a book? Should I believe whatever is written in a particular book, just because it is written there? I mean, anybody can write anything, that doesn't make it true. Why should I believe what people wrote about God in a certain book?
| Quote: | For me, God showed up, I was saved, then He pointed to scripture.
|
The Qu'ran? The Torah? The Vedas? The Bible?
| Quote: | | Yeah you do. Faith is trusting God to lead the way even when He doesn't tell you where you're going, what you're going to do, and what's going to happen. |
He doesn't tell you much of anything, does he?  How do you know he's telling you anything at all? Maybe you're just making up stuff in your head and then imagining that some god is talking to you, when really you're just talking to yourself.
_________________
Kryten: Don't you believe that God exists in all things? Aren't you a Pantheist?
Lister: Yeah, I just don't think it applies to kitchen utensils. I'm not a Fryingpantheist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
