Quote :

"Because different cultures have developed similar moral frameworks, there must be a supernatural? This is the great insight ohmy spent his life coming to? Lol. Here i thought he was going to say something interesting."

I haven't said or implied anything close to that.

However, I've been doing some reading. And I have lots of questions.

First, I want to admit that I was wrong about jumping to conclusions about the materialists' moral frameworks in the other thread. I made the leap from saying that your belief isn't rationalist to saying that it isn't good. That's not true if you define good in pragmatist terms, of what's useful for the individual and collective (which demands an entirely different debate but not now). So this extreme subjectivism and moral relativism I think DOES work if you are ok with knowing that truth and utility are two different things, and you are only seeking utility (defined of course in a vary narrow way at any given time in any given culture...which is why you must give up on the search for truth altogether). Read any epistemological criticism of pragmatism. It'll say the same thing. (I'll include some links below.)

If you ascribe to philosophical pragmatism, I think if you're trying to be intellectually honest, you have to admit your philosophy has little concern for any desire to discover what may be objectively true. Like an ostrich with its head in the sand. If you take it out, and ascribe to materialism, you'll end up in despair like Nietzsche. So how does the materialist, pragmatist approach truth, meaning, and life? The road from materialism to pragmatism to existential nihilism seems a natural one, and then you very quickly find out that true nihilism isn't productive at all for the species, so you have to put your head in the sand about what is true so you've sort of rationalized your way out of rational thinking in the first place and into despair.

I can't explain all the connections in that line of thought, because it'd take days. But I've included some links for you to read and respond to (many a philosopher have explained it for me) if you don't see the sequence from materialism to pragmatism to nihilism. If you do, please go ahead and comment on how you reconcile these things with the desire for truth and meaning. (No it's not a trap.)

First, if you don't know what I mean about philosophical pragmatism, pragmatic ethics, AND its implications (towards truth, society, etc) please read about William James and John Dewey's elaborations of the concept. I think a lot of you ascribe to this, so I'd be interested to hear if there are any points of contention. You could start here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_ethics

Then...http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/durkheim.htm

Then... http://www.bethinking.org/truth-tolerance/advanced/some-problems-with-pragmatism.htm

Then Chapter 13 starting on page 299 in this book http://tinyurl.com/ll5vcrf

Then this quote from CS Lewis yet again in his essay Man or Rabbit...

Quote :

"“Can’t you lead a good life without believing in Christianity?” This is the question on which I have been asked to write, and straight away, before I begin trying to answer it, I have a comment to make. The question sounds as if it were asked by a person who said to himself, “I don’t care whether Christianity is in fact true or not. I’m not interested in finding out whether the real universe is more what like the Christians say than what the Materialists say. All I’m interested in is leading a good life. I’m going to choose beliefs not because I think them true but because I find them helpful.” Now frankly, I find it hard to sympathise with this state of mind. One of the things that distinguishes man from the other animals is that he wants to know things, wants to find out what reality is like, simply for the sake of knowing. When that desire is completely quenched in anyone, I think he has become something less than human. As a matter of fact, I don’t believe any of you have really lost that desire. More probably, foolish preachers, by always telling you how much Christianity will help you and how good it is for society, have actually led you to forget that Christianity is not a patent medicine. Christianity claims to give an account of facts—to tell you what the real universe is like. Its account of the universe may be true, or it may not, and once the question is really before you, then your natural inquisitiveness must make you want to know the answer. If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might be: if it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all."

Then this interview with a Christian apologist....

Quote :

"DM: It seems that many Christians, including preachers, are reticent to share their faith with secular people because they believe that their non- Christian friends and neighbors are experiencing a fulfilling, contented existence. Yet, you suggest that "for many in our high-paced world, despair is not a moment; it is a way of life."4 Why does an antitheistic worldview so often lead to despair? RZ: It may not be an anguished despair, but it is a surrender to a pointlessness of existence. It is a Despair with a capital D. Existentialists admit that. Camus commented that death is philosophy's only problem. Jean-Paul Sartre said that life is an empty bubble, floating on the sea of nothingness. On his deathbed he admitted that his philosophy of atheism turned out to be unlivable. He rejected its ramifications, albeit very late in life. The reason that an antitheistic worldview so often leads to despair lies deep within the human heart. Solomon said in Ecclesiastes that God has put eternity into the heart of man. We long for such a quality of coherence that denies death the capability of swallowing up all the affections, all the loves that we have, thus rendering life pointless. So this hunger for coherence and transcendent meaning is a very real one. The moral sense within the human mind compels us to seek a basic sense of significance not just a contrived significance but an essential, authentic significance. This has been observed and proven time and again."

from https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2000/03/reaching-the-secular-mind I'm only interested in this part of the interview. You'd turn this thread into pandora's box if you try to address everything else.

I'm more curious to insight as to irrefutable proof, because as many people have pointed out already, it probably doesn't exist either way. I'm sounding like such a relativist now! But I would really prefer you read the links in order and respond, instead of nitpicking just the couple short religious links I posted (which is the low-hanging fruit, especially if you fail to understand the line of reasoning preceding from the previous links).

That's a ton I know. I don't demand quick answers. NOR DOES THE PRAGMATIST!

[Edited on November 21, 2013 at 12:10 PM. Reason : edit words]

11/21/2013 11:56:15 AM

Quote :

"The reason that an antitheistic worldview so often leads to despair lies deep within the human heart. "

from places like golo (and facebook), it seems to me thattheists are the ones that live in despair. They always seem to be lamenting "what is this world coming to?" In my experiences, atheists don't seem to live in any more despair than theists, and in many cases, the theists live in more despair.

11/21/2013 12:11:46 PM

Quote :

"But I would really prefer you read the links in order and respond, instead of nitpicking just the couple short religious links I posted (which is the low-hanging fruit, especially if you fail to understand the line of reasoning preceding from the previous links)."

Just kidding. You can say whatever you want. Whatever's better for the collective.

Seriously though, you're right. I know a lot of them. But I'd argue their theology is very poor (not in this thread though). And the "thinking" Christians I know are the most hope-filled and hope-driven people I know. Even in immense suffering.

11/21/2013 12:22:41 PM

What does it say about your stance that you want us to go respond to other peoples' arguments? Have you even read those links and processed them in a way that you understand them?

Has any atheist in this or the other thread linked you to Hume, Decarte, Dawkins, or Sam Harris? Would you find it honest if I said in response to your problems with secular morality 'Go Read The Moral Landscape and refute his points and get back to me.'?

Quote :

"Christians I know are the most hope-filled and hope-driven people I know."

'Hope' and 'happy' are not synonyms and trying to make 'hope' a virtue is one of the greatest crimes against humanity religion has ever done.

Quote :

"If you ascribe to philosophical pragmatism, I think if you're trying to be intellectually honest, you have to admit your philosophy has little concern for any desire to discover what may be objectively true"

Guilty as charged. "Objectively true" is likely never attainable due to the epistemic barrier. The only definition of truth that makes sense in our context is "That which conforms most to demonstrable reality."

[Edited on November 21, 2013 at 1:25 PM. Reason : .]

11/21/2013 1:22:11 PM

Descartes*. French people. Not that it matters. The point was make your own damned argument or STFU.

[Edited on November 21, 2013 at 2:15 PM. Reason : .]

11/21/2013 2:14:35 PM

guys, stop trying to debate with an Ivy-Leaguer. He's at Columbia.

11/21/2013 7:14:41 PM

Quote :

"'Hope' and 'happy' are not synonyms and trying to make 'hope' a virtue is one of the greatest crimes against humanity religion has ever done."

I disagree. I think hope is one of the most useful aspects of religion. It gives the average person an easy way to cope with the likely terrible life.

I can't blame CS Lewis for clinging to the idea that Christianity might hold a better truth of the universe than science, but he didn't have the benefit of moderns science, which while still not knowing anything, knows enough to demonstrate that Christianity most definitely does not and cannot serve to elucidate the truths of the universe.

Just like optical illusions and magic tricks manipulate the brains vision processing mechanisms that usually are helpful in allowing us to see better, religion is a psychological effect that manipulates the mechanisms of our brain that help is cope with imperfect information of our surroundings.

Ohmy seems to be using the term "absolute truth" as a rebranding of what Christians call the Holy Spirit. Where the Holy Spirit is a primitive understanding of evolutionary and neurological processes in the brain.

[Edited on November 21, 2013 at 10:53 PM. Reason : ]

11/21/2013 10:43:34 PM

<shrug> You see coping, I see being deluded. Wishful thinking is worse than doing nothing at all; they have exact the same actual results and cloud understanding of where the results actually came from.

Now that I think about it though, maybe humanity is better off with a vast majority of us being mindless drones stuck in our situation content to wait it out for an afterlife that doesn't exist.

11/22/2013 8:47:13 AM

If everyone is happy then no one is happy.

[Edited on November 22, 2013 at 9:25 AM. Reason : E]

11/22/2013 9:24:34 AM

Opiate for the masses

11/22/2013 9:29:52 AM

Quote :

" You see coping, I see being deluded. Wishful thinking is worse than doing nothing at all; they have exact the same actual results and cloud understanding of where the results actually came from. Now that I think about it though, maybe humanity is better off with a vast majority of us being mindless drones stuck in our situation content to wait it out for an afterlife that doesn't exist."

list of mindless drones:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

and a quote from some idiot:

Quote :

"a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content ... regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation ... In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be..."

awaiting the inevitable "apologist" accusation

[Edited on November 22, 2013 at 9:49 AM. Reason : .]

11/22/2013 9:36:41 AM

I never suggested that being a theist precludes someone from doing anything useful, only that hope in the divine or the afterlife itself is completely not useful to humanity.

Newton was an alchemist for fuck's sake.

11/22/2013 9:56:10 AM

but you did call them all deluded, mindless drones

[Edited on November 22, 2013 at 10:09 AM. Reason : vv]

11/22/2013 9:59:32 AM

No I didn't.

Quote :

"Now that I think about it though, maybe humanity is better off with a vast majority of us being mindless drones stuck in our situation content to wait it out for an afterlife that doesn't exist."

"vast majority of humanity"

NOT

"every single theist ever"

11/22/2013 10:03:31 AM

i read that as some people, theists, are mindless drones

but you meant to say that only some theists are mindless drones? whats the difference between a mindless drone theist and a non-mindless drone theist?

11/22/2013 10:07:42 AM

The vast majority of humanity is being held back by wishful thinking and irrationality. Some exceptional people are able to excel in spite of it.

This isn't even exclusive to theists. Anti-vaxxers, homeopathy, reiki, truthers, birthers, the list goes on.

11/22/2013 10:12:29 AM

The list does go on:

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism

11/22/2013 10:15:17 AM

It's getting a little euphoric in here.

11/22/2013 10:18:49 AM

Quote :

"Opiate for the masses"

The actual quote:

"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

11/22/2013 11:04:21 AM

11/22/2013 11:55:04 PM

^i like that a lot

[Edited on November 23, 2013 at 9:25 AM. Reason : .]

11/23/2013 9:08:14 AM

I like the shout out to Mithras.

11/23/2013 11:29:15 AM

Quote :

"What does it say about your stance that you want us to go respond to other peoples' arguments? Have you even read those links and processed them in a way that you understand them? Has any atheist in this or the other thread linked you to Hume, Decarte, Dawkins, or Sam Harris? Would you find it honest if I said in response to your problems with secular morality 'Go Read The Moral Landscape and refute his points and get back to me.'?"

Well, if you said go read it and give me your insight (not proof or refutation for a pre-existing bias), because I'm actually curious to learn, and I admit that a single TWW thread, much less an entire life spent on an online forum, isn't enough to explain the meaning of the universe, because there are reasons after all that people devote their entire real life existence to these ideas and write entire anthologies on this stuff?

Why, yes. That would be honest.

In fact, I would prefer you do that, because I haven’t learned anything from any of your posts so far.

In fact, that’s what I've been doing, reading books and stuff.

It doesn't seem that you're interested at all in an honest discussion, though. If you were, if any us really were interested in truth, we might read some books, maybe even some from outside of our own circles. Spending time outside of our comfort zones seems to either destroy or strengthen our unchecked points of view.

and insert froshkiller post here

moron and adultswimon the other hand, thanks for engaging in the discussion a little more productively.

Quote :

"I disagree. I think hope is one of the most useful aspects of religion. It gives the average person an easy way to cope with the likely terrible life. I can't blame CS Lewis for clinging to the idea that Christianity might hold a better truth of the universe than science, but he didn't have the benefit of moderns science, which while still not knowing anything, knows enough to demonstrate that Christianity most definitely does not and cannot serve to elucidate the truths of the universe. Just like optical illusions and magic tricks manipulate the brains vision processing mechanisms that usually are helpful in allowing us to see better, religion is a psychological effect that manipulates the mechanisms of our brain that help is cope with imperfect information of our surroundings. Ohmy seems to be using the term "absolute truth" as a rebranding of what Christians call the Holy Spirit. Where the Holy Spirit is a primitive understanding of evolutionary and neurological processes in the brain."

I don't think the findings in modern science disprove any Christian claim. Many religious thinkers agree that the findings in science should, if anything, strengthen our faith, as we realize how ridiculously complex the Designer made these processes. Many fundamentalists, unfortunately, hold so tightly to their strict understanding of "truth" and to their poor understanding of Scripture, that if a particular thread in their worldview unravels, they feel wholly threatened and discount the new scientific discovery altogether, making us all look like fools. But there is a rich tradition of religious thinkers who embrace the sciences, and are finding that they illuminate our understanding of the universe, and thus the Creator, one they believe exists based largely on philosophy, not science (which can't make any claims about anything other than the material world.) This is relevant.

Quote :

"Charles Misner, a scientific specialist in general relativity theory, was quoted like this: [The design of the universe] is very magnificent and shouldn't be taken for granted. In fact, I believe that is why Einstein had so little use for organized religion, although he strikes me as a basically very religious man. He must have looked at what the preachers said about God and felt that they were blaspheming. He had seen much more majesty than they had ever imagined, and they were just not talking about the real thing."

[Edited on November 23, 2013 at 1:10 PM. Reason : ]

11/23/2013 1:08:53 PM

Quote :

"I don't think the findings in modern science disprove any Christian claim."

What are some of the Christian claims?

And arguing that the universe was designed to operate on it's own doesn't bolster Christianity any more than it detracts from it, and I'd argue that it detracts from it actually.

And it doesn't matter if it's a physicists says something that doesn't make sense about religion.

And finally, the elegance and wonders of the universe and natural world is an awesome thing, far greater than the piddling mysteries written about in the bible. When we have real life dark energy, dark matter, black holes, diffraction patterns, quantum physics, etc, who cares if someone can walk on water or survive a furnace, or float in the sky? Religions don't come remotely close to even whispering about what the secrets of the universe really are.

Religion is useful as a guide book for pop psychology. It helps convince people to be patient and humble, which is valuable to society.

11/23/2013 2:46:51 PM

Those piddling mysteries aren't piddling. The claims of Christianity? I'm about to take the bait and jump the gun here and talk some apparent crazy talk, but I'll try to shed light on why they are important and meaningful...

They are a series of truths, illustrated through a grand metanarrative, one that should inform our every decision in life- the story of the universe, and of humanity, that exists for the glory of God. This is going to be a brief overview and will raise lots of questions. But for now...

There are four basic chapters to this metanarrative- creation, fall, redemption, restoration.

Creation. God created the universe to reflect his greatness. Robots wouldn't do that. He gave us free will.

Fall. We thought ourselves to be gods instead. We rebelled against him and brought the ugliness of sin into the world. Everything is broken- our souls, our institutions, all of creation. God's heart was broken. Because he is just, the consequences of sin are real. Hell. Wrath. The destruction to ourselves and others that our personal and social sins bring into the word is all around us.

Redemption. The good news. God is not content to sit by and do nothing. He has always been at work, redeeming the world. He has always called us to serve him and serve others, to look outward, not inward for joy and for purpose. He is active in the spirits and minds of people to bring us into alignment with these purposes. (What's not good news about that!? Even the pragmatist would have to agree if society aligned more with the teachings of Jesus, the world would be a much better place!) But we keep on looking inwards, seeking to satisfy ourselves before others and God. Even our best attempts at morality are so unholy by God's perfect standards, that they are filthy rags. We are helpless wretched men. So through Jesus' crucifixion, his own death, and the resurrection, the defeat of death, the wrath that we deserved due to the nature of a justice was satisfied. The selfless nature of God was embodied in the life of Christ. This was the way God provided for redemption. So we see both grace and justice satisfied. Those who look outward, in acknowledgment of our helplessness and depravity, are saved. God is more interested in just mere souls though. He's interested in restoring all of creation...

Restoration. In the end, all of creation will be restored and sin and death will be no longer. God establishes a new heaven and a new earth. God wins.

There's a whole lot more to it of course, but these are some of the essentials. Sin is everywhere, though, in the atheist and the Christian, and unfortunately we miss these truths and fail to live them out.

People want to pin their agenda on truth, and so they take Scripture and twist it, maim it, and mold it to fit their agendas. With disastrous results- for the world and for the Christian faith. And the Bible talks a lot about this actually. For example, it warns repeatedly against the lures of power and politics. And shows repeatedly people trying to pin their agenda on the embodied truth- God himself in human form- Jesus. The pharisees (the powerful religious elites of the day) tried to do this, even citing isolated Scriptural truths that Jesus would agree with. But they weren't interested in submitting to the truth. They were interested in having the truth submit to themselves, in exploiting it, trying to have their way. And so Jesus often gave seemingly ambiguous answers, avoiding their traps, answering with questions, exposing their own hearts as wicked.

The world tends to distance themselves from absolute truths, because so many institutions have used the notion as a means to exploit and oppress. Conform to the truth or be marginalized (happening now with the hardline materialist, secularist agenda towards the religious). So how do we govern in a pluralistic society? Obliterate the notions of absolute truths (obliterate the philosophies and liberal arts and things that don't fit the scientists' naturalistic perspective of what's immediately pragmatic and utilitarian at the expense of larger truths and larger holistic health). But this is hypocritical and postmodernism is beginning to be exposed for the sham it is (we'll see how long it takes).

Logically, we must admit that there is some sort of universal metaphysical absolute truth or Tao or God or inherent morality that we should strive for. (The rational alternative is materialism -> pragmatism -> existential nihilism, which must admit despair and is not pragmatic at all for the human species. it's a self-destructive argument).

The Christian Bible proposes an absolute truth, a moral law embodied in God, that we should strive to submit to. But here's where it differs from all belief systems that also claim an absolute truth. It's the only one that CANNOT be oppressive. History might seem to show otherwise with all of the "Christians" who have killed in the name of God, but those are the same sinful religious self-righteous exploiters of truth, that Jesus came to convict. True Christianity cannot be oppressive, because at its very core, is the truth embodied in Jesus Christ who DIES for his enemies, for those who disagree, for those who hate him. The Gospels and the writings of Paul are explicit in this. And Christians are called to the same.

I see why that can all be reduced to pop psychology. But there's a lot of evidence for the philosophical failures of materialism and pragmatism that point to truths beyond our material existence. So if that takes you to spiritual things, then you must wonder which spiritual things are right (and not all religions can be true, law of noncontradiction), and there seems to be more evidence for Christianity- reliability of the four Gospels despite all the attempts to discredit them, spread of early Christianity (doubters turning to martyrs within the span of a few years), the claims of Christ, the lived lives and effects of those who embrace a full understanding of Scripture, among others.

"Errors" in Scripture: http://theresurgence.com/2012/05/28/what-to-say-when-someone-says-the-bible-has-errors

Claims of Christ (he can't just be a good moral teacher): http://www.calvin.edu/~pribeiro/DCM-Lewis-2009/Lewis/man-or-rabbit.pdf

Lives of Christians: anything on the early church history, get involved at a solid local church with loving Christians, or this book http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Men-Secret-Their-Greatness/dp/1480521221

Resurrection: http://www.dartmouthapologia.org/articles/show/110

This is the most concise and readable of the best arguments for God: http://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Timothy-Keller-ebook/dp/B000XPNUZE/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1385240760&sr=1-1&keywords=reason+for+god+tim+keller

None of those links are proof of anything. But they are evidence. Evidence that can rationally be considered in favor of God. You can also explain it away rationally, but I think then you will have more problems coming up with another logical worldview (as evidenced by the natural law/absolute truth argument I've been making). Few Christian apologists claim to offer irrefutable proof. But it seems to be the only worldview that provides a paradigm for consistently making sense of the world. More of them agree with C.S. Lewis:

Quote :

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

[Edited on November 23, 2013 at 4:13 PM. Reason : ]

11/23/2013 3:47:45 PM

whoops, 30 minutes is up, but...

Why do these claims matter? Because all of the ills of the world could be resolved if we obeyed Jesus. (To be clear, because of the battle against and giving in to sin, Christians, including myself, don't listen and obey much of the time either. We're just as guilty as anyone.)

Quote :

"“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”"

11/23/2013 4:24:38 PM

I was going to respond line by line but all of it is putting the cart before the horse.

Before I take anything you say about the nature of God seriously I'm going to need you to prove he exists.

And I find it completely ridiculous that you characterize me asking you to form your own argument instead of asking us to take a course "not wanting an honest conversation." You're a joke.

Quote :

"None of those links are proof of anything. But they are evidence. Evidence that can rationally be considered in favor of God. You can also explain it away rationally, but I think then you will have more problems coming up with another logical worldview (as evidenced by the natural law/absolute truth argument I've been making). Few Christian apologists claim to offer irrefutable proof. But it seems to be the only worldview that provides a paradigm for consistently making sense of the world. More of them agree with C.S. Lewis:"

What are you smoking? First, you haven't proven natural law or absolute truth or even made an honest attempt at it. Second, are you honestly claiming that Christianity makes "more sense of the world" than naturalism? Honestly? Did you faith that onto the Internet with your god-puter?

The actual truth is we've only just begun to make sense of the Universe completely in spite of thousands of years of Christianity. It blows my mind that anyone could even attempt to argue otherwise but that's the level of mental gymnastics you have to go to rationalize theism I guess.

[Edited on November 23, 2013 at 8:32 PM. Reason : .]

11/23/2013 8:14:01 PM

^Exactly.

What a bunch of horse shit you have filled your mind with. You have been reading way too much Christian apologist crap. Read and watch Sam Harris, Dawkins, etc. and get back to us.

11/24/2013 3:00:41 AM

I have read Dawkins. He certainly didn't prove God does not exist. Nor have you.

If you didn't read any of the links I posted and arguments I made about naturalism and pragmatism and existential nihilism, there's nothing else anyone can do for you.

Quote :

"The actual truth is we've only just begun to make sense of the Universe completely in spite of thousands of years of Christianity. It blows my mind that anyone could even attempt to argue otherwise but that's the level of mental gymnastics you have to go to rationalize theism I guess."

There is no logical conflict between describing and explaining natural mechanisms, and describing and explaining the plans and purposes of natural mechanisms. This stuff isn't anything new, guys. People like Dawkins pretend it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Tell me how anything science has shown us has discounted the existence of God?

[Edited on November 24, 2013 at 12:04 PM. Reason : ]

11/24/2013 11:38:42 AM

Your god? Let's start with Genesis being completely debunked by Evolution. And every single supernatural claim ever put to the test has been debunked.

Does that "prove" 100% without a doubt that Yahweh doesn't exist? No, it's entirely possible that your particular god inspired/wrote/whatever'd a book that's full of bigotry and historical/scientific inaccuracy and then just lets countless people suffer and die in an elaborate ruse to test us, but he really loves us or something.

Quote :

"There is no logical conflict between describing and explaining natural mechanisms, and describing and explaining the plans and purposes of natural mechanisms."

The problem is that what you call "describing and explaining" in this case is really just you making shit up.

And as always, Hitchen's razor applies: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[Edited on November 24, 2013 at 1:29 PM. Reason : .]

11/24/2013 1:24:53 PM

Quote :

"If you didn't read any of the links I posted and arguments I made about naturalism and pragmatism and existential nihilism."

Been there, done that. You claim that without god, or a universal metaphysical truth, or whatever, that I am incapable of appreciating the beauty of the universe, will find no meaning in life, and will live the my life in aimless despair.

Utter. Horse shit. Millions of atheists and non-religious demonstrate this is wrong, including me.

11/24/2013 1:57:56 PM

^ Tell me a little about how you find meaning. Try to be intellectually honest.

^^No, not my God. Just a God. "Reasonable arguments in favor of God" is the thread name.

Hitchens razor applies to your worldview as well. What can be asserted without evidence (there is no God, because I don't see it- that's a huge leap of faith) can be dismissed without evidence.

From a naturalist's perspective, that makes sense. But there's no logical reason to discount most of the human experience. Or to discount reason, and reduce all of our existence to atoms and synapses. (See previous posts on that)

There's a reason we don't just study science in schools, as much as you wish we would. Even today's most liberal and elite schools have departments of philosophy, arts, and ethics, because they realize science can only tell us what's observable by sensory experience. But using reason and the mind, they've deduced there is more to being human than sensory experience.

[Edited on November 24, 2013 at 2:16 PM. Reason : ]

11/24/2013 2:07:41 PM

I'm not going to get into what I find "the meaning of life" to be with you. Suffice it to say, I do not have to belief in a god, etc. to have meaning. As is true for millions of others. You badly need to stop with this reductio ad absurdum assertion that humanity will head towards nihilism without god, because it just doesn't hold up.

11/24/2013 2:37:15 PM

Quote :

"There's a reason we don't just study science in schools, as much as you wish we would. Even today's most liberal and elite schools have departments of philosophy, arts, and ethics, because they realize science can only tell us what's observable by sensory experience. But using reason and the mind, they've deduced there is more to being human than sensory experience."

Philosophy, arts, and ethics study the subjective nature of reality.

Science studies the objective reality.

You are claiming religion does a better job than science at coming to conclusions describing the natural world.

That's why those with a higher than average IQ tend to disagree with you.

11/24/2013 2:40:38 PM

^^i rest my case an assume you won't give into it because the rational conclusion would be Nietzcshe's.

^im not discounting science's conclusions. But science has no authority to discount what is outside its realm of study. If you're throwing my intellect in with that of Plato's and Alvin Plantinga's, thanks!!!

11/24/2013 3:08:56 PM

So let's be clear... What is exactly outside the realm of science? Why?

11/24/2013 3:18:10 PM

the rational conclusion of a materialist may be a type of pragmatism, but it most definitely will be, if it's intellectually honest, nihilism.

but nihilism then contradicts earlier assumptions about the self-preservation of the species, because certainly all humans living in despair isn't very beneficial for the survival of the species. so we have to delude ourselves into thinking there is meaning (fight for human rights, a human utopia, etc...although none of those have any rational basis according to the materialists' preconceived conclusions). You can be a materialist then, and a pragmatist (the greater instinct is to work for the betterment of the collective, or to balance the needs of the individual and the collective, thus creating arbitrary moral frameworks), but you must admit you're concerned with what is useful, not what is true (again, truth -> despair -> seeing the flaws in your line of thinking). (Dostoyevsky illustrated what the rational implications of materialist pragmatism would look like in his novels by the way.)

The theist has reason to believe meaning, purpose, and truth is outside of us, that essence precedes existence. The Bible's answer? "He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end."

Sure you can say that's all pop psychobabble to make people feel better, opiate for the masses and all. (Even from a materialist pragmatist's standpoint, religion would be recommended as opposed to despair or deluding yourself into thinking you have meaning outside of atoms and instincts). But you still haven't addressed the fatal flaws in your own worldview.

An atheist tries to create essence for himself all the time. That's why there are tons of happy atheists everywhere. Many happier than theists I admit. But they're borrowing from theism without admitting it. They're giving meaning to relationships or human rights or the collective or whatever keeps them alive, because to admit that those motivations are only synaptic reactions, to admit that they came from nothing, are nothing, and have nothing, would be too paralyzing. And the second they give any sort of value to anything, they are appealing to a supernatural, absolute, universal existence (Tao, God, Truth, whatever) beyond themselves- something their materialism makes no room for. There is no rational reason that they should favor one instinct (that of favoring the collective, or their survival within the collective) over another, without appealing to something beyond instincts.

[Edited on November 24, 2013 at 4:02 PM. Reason : ]

11/24/2013 3:46:30 PM

Did that answer my question? I honestly can't follow your line of thinking.

State it simply. What is it exactly that science can't measure with regards to the nature of reality. And why is that so?

Then tell me why religion, (or Christianity specifically), is more practical description of nature.

Please keep it brief. I don't really care enough about this argument to read walls of text that dance around rather than cutting to the meat of an argument.

[Edited on November 24, 2013 at 4:02 PM. Reason : edit]

11/24/2013 3:59:13 PM

Quote :

"^^No, not my God. Just a God. "Reasonable arguments in favor of God" is the thread name."

I'm almost 100% certain he was referring to the Biblical God since in our culture that's the only god we spell with a capital G. I'm not dtownral though so whatever. Which god do you argue for? Are you tacitly admitting that all your bullshit reasoning would only support a generic god (if at all) and you have to assume the Resurrection myth is real to narrow it down to your god?

Quote :

"Hitchens razor applies to your worldview as well. What can be asserted without evidence (there is no God, because I don't see it- that's a huge leap of faith) can be dismissed without evidence."

First, quit speaking for me. My worldview is skepticism, of which "weak" atheism and methodological naturalism are logical consequences. Second, atheism isn't a worldview. My atheism is simply the rejection of all theistic claims due to complete lack of evidentiary support.

Quote :

"But there's no logical reason to discount most of the human experience."

There's a multitude of good reasons to discount most of human experience. Our subjectivity, severe propensity for memory/sensory error, groupthinking, etc., demands that we come up with a methodology to sort through all the myriad bullshit claims and find that which conforms best to demonstrable reality. Wait a sec, such a methodology does exist, and what does it say about the fables upon which Christianity is built?

Quote :

"Or to discount reason, and reduce all of our existence to atoms and synapses. (See previous posts on that)"

Naturalism isn't a discounting of reason. It's the most reasonable conclusion to the evidence we have on hand: demonstrable reality. Seriously, if gods were actually supported by evidence they would be taught in science class. Why aren't they?

Quote :

"There's a reason we don't just study science in schools, as much as you wish we would."

I'm done being civil if you're going to continue to speak for me. I'm perfectly fine with what is currently taught in secular school and how it is taught. Religion in comparative religion, science in science.

Quote :

"even today's most liberal and elite schools have departments of philosophy, arts, and ethics, because they realize science can only tell us what's observable by sensory experience."

Well, come back to me when you have a methodology from philosophy, arts, ethics that does a better job explaining demonstrable reality than science when we're having a conversation about the existence of something in demonstrable reality.

Quote :

"But using reason and the mind, they've deduced there is more to being human than sensory experience."

I'm confused about how any of the fields you've mentioned support the idea of there being "more." Philosophy may conjecture about metaphysics, but arts and ethics and every other non-science subject in school is intrinsically tied to human sensory experience.

Quote :

"^im not discounting science's conclusions. But science has no authority to discount what is outside its realm of study. If you're throwing my intellect in with that of Plato's and Alvin Plantinga's, thanks!!! "

If you haven't figured out that name-dropping isn't impressive yet there's no help from you. Plantinga is a creationist. Are you throwing your hat in with that?

11/24/2013 4:03:06 PM

Quote :

"An atheist tries to create essence for himself all the time. That's why there are tons of happy atheists everywhere. Many happier than theists I admit. But they're borrowing from theism without admitting it. They're giving meaning to relationships or human rights or the collective or whatever keeps them alive, because to admit that those motivations are only synaptic reactions, to admit that they came from nothing, are nothing, and have nothing, would be too paralyzing. And the second they give any sort of value to anything, they are appealing to a supernatural, absolute, universal existence (Tao, God, Truth, whatever) beyond themselves- something their materialism makes no room for. There is no rational reason that they should favor one instinct (that of favoring the collective, or their survival within the collective) over another, without appealing to something beyond instincts."

This really sticks in my craw. Theists only believe they have objective meaning, but you nor they have proven that they're not just suffering from wishful thinking.

And to suggest we can't make value or ought judgement except by appealing to the supernatural is absurd. We just admit that they might not be "absolute" or "objective" (if such things even exist) and are the best that we have have to work with.

The only ones not being honest with themselves are the people who believe they have a magic hardline to absolute certainty which they can't prove exists.

The "meaning" in life we get from action, observation, introspection, and communication with others is profoundly more meaningful than what was written down by primitive savages thousands of years ago.

[Edited on November 24, 2013 at 4:32 PM. Reason : .]

11/24/2013 4:29:34 PM

Quote :

"primitive savages"

Nice. That Jesus guy. Those early Christian martyrs. The writings of the Apostle Paul. Savages.

Quote :

"And to suggest we can't make value or ought judgement except by appealing to the supernatural is absurd. We just admit that they might not be "absolute" or "objective" (if such things even exist) and are the best that we have have to work with."

Why try to delineate a "best" or "try to work with" anything at all? And the second you start to explain this, I think I'd refer you back to the argument in my last post.

Quote :

"The only one's not being honest with themselves are the people who believe they have a magic hardline to absolute certainty which they can't prove exists. "

I do need to be clear. I am not admitting I have a magic hardline to absolute certainty. But I do believe such a standard exists, and we obliged to pursue it. For me (and many religious people) truth is something we submit to, not the other way around (as the pragmatist would have you think).

Quote :

"If you haven't figured out that name-dropping isn't impressive yet there's no help from you. Plantinga is a creationist. Are you throwing your hat in with that?"

Sorry for name-dropping. I guess I'm using one logical fallacy to combat all of the other fallacies heading my way ("I'll pit the IQ of elite secular scientists vs the...hmmm...let's see....the Christian backwoods fundamentalist rednecks! Yeah! We'll pretend those are the only ones who believe in God!")

Anyways, neither of you have responded to any of the central claims in my posts. I admit it's not the most clearly articulated. But asking for anything but blocks of text or any outside reading with regard to such loaded questions shows how much we let our own subjectivities determine our unchecked notions of what we think is unsettled fact. There is an entire line of reasoning that needs to be examined. To demand simple answers (from either side) is naive.

I was trying to see if someone articulates these ideas more succinctly or clearly, and haven't find anything (for the very reasons I just mentioned). Here's one argument, though, that might fill in some of the gaps for you, but it's pretty long. The temptation will be not to read it, though, because it's dedicating a significant portion of your time to objectively evaluating your own skepticism, and few really want t do that in the first place. They're more content with building their own defenses. But for the more curious:

(I hate that it's on a website called renew america and that he's called the father of neoconservatism. It'll make people likely to give into ad hominems instead of rebutting his argument)http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hutchison/070307

Here's a shorter article with some of the main ideas, but much easier to debate, because he doesn't fill in the gaps, that the article above does:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/10/11/do-people-bark/

ibt "But it's tooooo long. Just gimme the answer to life in a sentence."

[Edited on November 24, 2013 at 4:47 PM. Reason : ]

11/24/2013 4:43:59 PM

If you can't succinctly describe an argument, then you don't have one. Or at least you don't understand your argument well enough to put it succinctly.

I refuse to read 30 minutes of nonsense where an apologist creates a strawman, argues against it and then says "...and that's where God comes in." I derive value for life and consciousness by it's nature of being finite. Time is precious and I don't have enough of it to waste on that shit.

Quote :

"I do need to be clear. I am not admitting I have a magic hardline to absolute certainty. But I do believe such a standard exists, and we obliged to pursue it. For me (and many religious people) truth is something we submit to, not the other way around (as the pragmatist would have you think). "

Then what are you admitting or claiming?

How can we have a reasonable discussion if you don't clearly state your position?

And please explains to me what submitting to truth means?

11/24/2013 5:51:08 PM

Quote :

"^^i rest my case an assume you won't give into it because the rational conclusion would be Nietzcshe's."

Nah. How could I, or anyone else, who has loving family and friends, a fulfilling career, tons of leisure time, lives in relative safety, etc, possibly live in despair, just because everything is atoms and synapses? The universe is beautiful in all its complexity whether or not some entity created it. I, and people like me, do not need a god or some higher power to have hope and meaning to life. When quality of life was shit back in the Dark Ages, your assertion might have had some truth to it. But it does no longer. And incidentally that is why you are seeing religion dwindle.

11/24/2013 5:53:47 PM

Quote :

"I refuse to read 30 minutes of nonsense where an apologist creates a strawman, argues against it and then says "...and that's where God comes in." I derive value for life and consciousness by it's nature of being finite. Time is precious and I don't have enough of it to waste on that shit."

Objectivity much? Assuming what you haven't read is automatically wrong isn't a good idea, even if they cohere with your current belief set.

Quote :

"loving family and friends, a fulfilling career, tons of leisure time, lives in relative safety,"

You're fooling yourself then. They don't mean anything (according to the materialist argument). You delude yourself into thinking that they ever did. And the second anyone tries to say they define their own meaning, I'd refer them back to the posts where I demonstrated that point- the materialist must take no interest in what is true, only in what is useful in order to not descend into despair. You must convince yourself that those things DO actually mean something. William James, who laid much of the groundwork for today's materialist atheism, practically REDEFINED truth as what is useful for goodness sake.

We're going in circles because no one has dared to rationally rebut any of the points I've made or have linked to. If you post in the same spirit of everything I've seen from you guys so far, just imagine a post from me that reiterates the previous arguments that still haven't been addressed (ibt "But you don't have one if you can't say it in a paragraph or less"). This thread is wasting my time because we're getting nowhere. I need to be more productive, so I'm bowing out of this one. If there's a new argument that refutes anything I've said, or a serious question, you can pm me. But in the meantime I'm going to try to stay away because I lack the discipline to only respond to the more rational arguments that ever sought to first, understand the rational ones I've laid out, and second, rebut them. I guess I was the delusional one to think TWW ever would be the place for that. I probably shouldn't have taken the bait. I'm sort of new to The Soapbox lol. I'll miss you guys!

[Edited on November 24, 2013 at 6:30 PM. Reason : ]

11/24/2013 6:28:36 PM

Quote :

"Objectivity much? Assuming what you haven't read is automatically wrong isn't a good idea, even if they cohere with your current belief set."

Bro, I read the last 2 segments of this: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hutchison/070307

And knew that reading the whole thing would be more of the same nonsense and a waste of my time.

Chatting with Christian Apologists is teeth pulling. You blab on and on and on, establishing this ground work of "logic and reason" then you put the onus on the skeptic to argue for or against your framework when half of it is a strawman. Then out of nowhere there's a leap of faith and that goes something like "...and in the bible it says jesus was god and resurrected, this is evidence, with eye whitness testimony. Praise god, it's all true. That's why we are right."

Forgive me if I refuse to read the same argument over and over again when it doesn't offer anything new. Especially when it is almost always packaged in a big ol' wall o text.

Let me know when some real evidence is uncovered.

11/24/2013 6:57:50 PM

Quote :

" I need to be more productive "

That's the truth. You haven't said anything of substance regarding the existence of your god this entire thread. All you've done is claim that atheism, materialism, naturalism are flawed in some way. The only "evidences" you've provided are themselves dependent on your god existing; the definition of question begging.

Quote :

"so I'm bowing out of this one. "

Thank your imaginary god.

^don't forget: "Your worldview is even less plausible than mine; here are all the other Christians throughout history; nevermind the superstitious horseshit you really have to believe in;"

[Edited on November 24, 2013 at 7:54 PM. Reason : .]

11/24/2013 7:47:38 PM

Thank you, Columbia philosophy major, for the revelation that all of the things that give meaning and satisfaction to my life are a delusion, because Nietzsche. And thank you for keeping your head in the sand about every rebuttal you have gotten to any cogent apologist arguments you might have made.

11/24/2013 10:04:16 PM

God damn yes. He doesn't respond to shit and we responded to essentially every line and he's like "waaaa, you didn't rebut all my reasonable arguments.."

The only lines I didn't respond to directly was the "Creation, Fall...etc" that was question begging, putting the cart before the horse, whatever you want to call it assuming the god of ancient hebrew savages.

And yes, guy, if you read this thread again the "teachings" attributed to Jesus and especially Saul of Tarsus are some savage shit.

11/24/2013 10:30:59 PM

Quote :

"They don't mean anything (according to the materialist argument). You delude yourself into thinking that they ever did. And the second anyone tries to say they define their own meaning, I'd refer them back to the posts where I demonstrated that point- the materialist must take no interest in what is true, only in what is useful in order to not descend into despair. You must convince yourself that those things DO actually mean something. William James, who laid much of the groundwork for today's materialist atheism, practically REDEFINED truth as what is useful for goodness sake."

Define "meaning" and explain how religion can provide that meaning.

11/24/2013 10:34:16 PM

Quote :

"Define "meaning" and explain how religion can provide that meaning."

Here's the passage on wikipedia that does a far better job than he would:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#Death_of_God_and_nihilism

11/24/2013 10:46:12 PM