Objectivity: Something Theists Hate

Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Objectivity: Something Theists Hate

  Theists have a real problem with objectivity. So much so that they want to wish it into the realm of illusion, quoting Imanual Kant when it suits them.

  Some get really upset and passionate when you tell them that there's no objective evidence for their mythos, they'll go on and on about how all human experience is subjective and how nothing is really objective because it's all percieved by human beings with subjective points of view.

  Have these people never balenced a checkbook? Do they ever look at their speedometers to see how fast they're going, or is that just a subjective human experience? Is there really no way you can tell how fast your car is going because the speedometer is subjective because the person who built it was having a subjective human experience when he built it? What about your experience in reading the speedometer? That's subjective too and the cop's radar, I suppose that's subjective as well? I suppose the cop and the state have to rely on the subjective experience of jurors to get a conviction.

 

 It's easy to see what's really going on here. They can and will never get any credibility with their mystical experiences being anything other than dreams and hallucinations as long as objectivity exists, so they have to do their best to dismiss it.

 

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13663
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Bias will always exist, in

Bias will always exist, in politics, in religion and even among scientists. Because we are human and imperfect.

BUT what method is, by far, is the best quality control system humans have come up with.

To say scientists cant have bias is bullshit. If you have one employed by a drug company they can lean to selling the FDA a bad drug.

Everyone, even among atheists, we even have our bias. Beyond Saving and I are constantly at each others throats about the solutions to America's economic problems.

So being a scientist or atheist does not mean we don't have our own bias.

What I don't want lost in your rightful criticism that believers cling to superstition because the thought of being wrong frightens them, is the fact that we ARE all the same species.

Which is why we have to accept that bias will happen, even among our own label. And where our differences divide us METHOD is the only universal tool our species can employ to settle such disputes.

Skip the labels because there are PLENTY of right wing atheists and left wing bleeding hearts that scare the shit out of me.

If humanity wants to find out what works, the more important thing we can do than getting into pissing contests, is to skip the pissing part and simply test.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
That's a loaded comment,

That's a loaded comment, reality is most definitely not subjective, but our understanding of it is.  Our understanding of it is subjective and relative.  That is the reason why we need to constantly, empirically test claims against reality.  The issue arriving from that is, absolute knowledge.  What do you know absolutely?  In other words if EVERYTHING is subjective, how do you know that reality is what reality is?

Bob presented a very thoughtful comment on " cognito ergo sum", I forget the thread.  Or the one I like "dubito, ergo cognito, ergo sum".  The very basis of knowledge.  That really is your objective frame of reference.  You start from that and everything else is just increments of certainty.  You can be 99.999999999% sure of something else, but you cannot have ABSOLUTE knowledge of anything else.  Which is fine, we do not need 100% absolute knowledge of anything else to function.  

Comment to be continued when I have more time....

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13663
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:That's a loaded

Ktulu wrote:

That's a loaded comment, reality is most definitely not subjective, but our understanding of it is.  Our understanding of it is subjective and relative.  That is the reason why we need to constantly, empirically test claims against reality.  The issue arriving from that is, absolute knowledge.  What do you know absolutely?  In other words if EVERYTHING is subjective, how do you know that reality is what reality is?

Bob presented a very thoughtful comment on " cognito ergo sum", I forget the thread.  Or the one I like "dubito, ergo cognito, ergo sum".  The very basis of knowledge.  That really is your objective frame of reference.  You start from that and everything else is just increments of certainty.  You can be 99.999999999% sure of something else, but you cannot have ABSOLUTE knowledge of anything else.  Which is fine, we do not need 100% absolute knowledge of anything else to function.  

Comment to be continued when I have more time....

I don't know who you were firing that objection to.

Even scientists can be bias otherwise we wouldn't have lawsuits against drug companies who employ scientists to make their products that end up getting passed and end up killing people. The atom bomb was based on science too.

Scientific method can be misused and twisted, like many of the theist here who use buzz words to justify scienc proving their pet deity.

BUT  method itself, in the principle of putting your claims out in the open to be thrashed and kicked around is still and seems to be the only process in which humans can settle any conflicting ideas about the nature of reality. That does not mean that the theist or atheist cant misuse the tool of method. Like a reff in any sport, the ability to filter out bias, not their personal leanings, is what constitutes the best quality control.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


joe_2007
Theist
Posts: 57
Joined: 2008-06-11
User is offlineOffline
Funny

Marty Hamrick wrote:

  Theists have a real problem with objectivity. So much so that they want to wish it into the realm of illusion, quoting Imanual Kant when it suits them.

  Some get really upset and passionate when you tell them that there's no objective evidence for their mythos, they'll go on and on about how all human experience is subjective and how nothing is really objective because it's all percieved by human beings with subjective points of view.

  Have these people never balenced a checkbook? Do they ever look at their speedometers to see how fast they're going, or is that just a subjective human experience? Is there really no way you can tell how fast your car is going because the speedometer is subjective because the person who built it was having a subjective human experience when he built it? What about your experience in reading the speedometer? That's subjective too and the cop's radar, I suppose that's subjective as well? I suppose the cop and the state have to rely on the subjective experience of jurors to get a conviction.

 

 It's easy to see what's really going on here. They can and will never get any credibility with their mystical experiences being anything other than dreams and hallucinations as long as objectivity exists, so they have to do their best to dismiss it.

 

Marty,

 I think your example is funny, because on the way to work today, my speedometer read 53, with the cruise-control on, and the radar-speed sign said 49.  So which one was objective, which one was right? Probably neither. Smiling  I have no problem with objectivity, if you can actually find some.  I met a girl from Britain who had never heard of the Revolutionary War. She was taught that America started from  British colonies, but was not taught that England had lost any war over it.  History is often most subjective.

Joe


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Like how Americans grow up

Like how Americans grow up getting taught they won WW1 & 2 all by themselves even though they had less impact than ANY other allied nation? Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5850
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Joe,both readings were

Joe,

both readings were objective data. Both were reasonably close approximations to the 'correct' figure. Neither was the precise, exact figure.

The two readings confirm that your speed was likely close to, perhaps a little below, 50mph. What is your problem?? The bigger the discrepancy, the more your concern and uncertainty would be justified.

You are making a really fundamental mistake, confusing finite levels of accuracy in specific physical instruments with inability to obtain truly 'objective' data. Take enough care, go to enough trouble in the design and construction of the instruments, we can increase the accuracy massively. None of this has anything to do with subjectivity.

Objective, empirical data always is going to have an error range, a finite degree of precision. That's the thing about REALITY, we can never now it perfectly, it has layers upon layers of complexity, down to atoms and quarks, way below what we can perceive, whereas what we dream up in our imagination is much more limited. Our subjective ideas are cartoon-like in comparison to reality, with no real depth.

Perfect knowledge does not exist, except in the delusion of metaphysics, or the nonsense of Platonic Idealism.

Estimating the likely accuracy of any data is an essential part of understanding reality. We do not have access to ultimate truth, whatever that really means.

Same with history. Of course there is human error and misconception. But we do know with a rather high degree of confidence the broad sweep of it, while there is more uncertainty about the details.

What is funny about such comments from a believer, is that Biblical 'history' is extremely uncertain, and almost entirely subjective, especially the supernatural bits.

So by a logical extension of your comments, your belief is built on the sand of total subjective fantasy and wishful thinking. 'Faith' is the ultimate in subjectivity.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hey OPIE

What the hell? Are you serious? When you say the term theist that could mean anybody from a Animinism to Zoroastrianism. Are you not a Chritian?

Specifically though, it was Christianity that brought the birth of the sciences into existence according to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Also, by definition, a secular humanist/atheist is 100% not capable of ever reaching the objective.

I was just on a research project down by the little Grand Canyon of Mt. Saint Helens. A 14 mile hike near the base of the creater. Dr. Steve Austin, a Christian geologist and one of the world's best geologist used objective analysis via the Christian framework worldview.

You got this 100% backwards OPIE. While goofy theists like Shinto or Hinduism or Islam for example who are satanic false "religions." the true "religion" of the true God is the only system of thought that even allows for the possibility of objectivity.

This is really stupid. lol. You have got to be kidding. Was this a joke? It was wasn't it? Have i been Punked? No way.

Respectfully,

Jean CHauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
^ jean makes a funny. It's

^ jean makes a funny. It's not funny to him, but it's funny to the rest of us who think. If christians were really responsible for science, instead of inhibiting it for dozens of generations, we'd have colonised Mars by now.
He also doesn't know what objective means, so of course he believes only his subjective views are objective. Many lulz were had.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13663
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:What the

Jean Chauvin wrote:

What the hell? Are you serious? When you say the term theist that could mean anybody from a Animinism to Zoroastrianism. Are you not a Chritian?

Specifically though, it was Christianity that brought the birth of the sciences into existence according to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Also, by definition, a secular humanist/atheist is 100% not capable of ever reaching the objective.

I was just on a research project down by the little Grand Canyon of Mt. Saint Helens. A 14 mile hike near the base of the creater. Dr. Steve Austin, a Christian geologist and one of the world's best geologist used objective analysis via the Christian framework worldview.

You got this 100% backwards OPIE. While goofy theists like Shinto or Hinduism or Islam for example who are satanic false "religions." the true "religion" of the true God is the only system of thought that even allows for the possibility of objectivity.

This is really stupid. lol. You have got to be kidding. Was this a joke? It was wasn't it? Have i been Punked? No way.

Respectfully,

Jean CHauvin (Jude 3).

No it wasn't dipshit anymore than Muslims invented science because they developed algebra.

Jesus/Allah/Thor nor pink unicorns are required for scientific discovery no matter what the "scientist's" personal pet god might be.

Gravity is not dependent on a gravity god and the sun burning is not dependent on the ancient Egyptian gods.

You just have one of thousands of stupid human invented superstitions.

There was no virgin birth and human flesh does not survive rigor mortis.

And most certainly I would never worship the prick of a dictator asshole whom you claim unleashed a tsunami on Japan as a warning to us. FUCK YOU and fuck your fictional cosmic dictator.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Trinity123
Posts: 15
Joined: 2011-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Marty Hamrick wrote: 

Marty Hamrick wrote:

  Theists have a real problem with objectivity. So much so that they want to wish it into the realm of illusion, quoting Imanual Kant when it suits them.

  Some get really upset and passionate when you tell them that there's no objective evidence for their mythos, they'll go on and on about how all human experience is subjective and how nothing is really objective because it's all percieved by human beings with subjective points of view.

  Have these people never balenced a checkbook? Do they ever look at their speedometers to see how fast they're going, or is that just a subjective human experience? Is there really no way you can tell how fast your car is going because the speedometer is subjective because the person who built it was having a subjective human experience when he built it? What about your experience in reading the speedometer? That's subjective too and the cop's radar, I suppose that's subjective as well? I suppose the cop and the state have to rely on the subjective experience of jurors to get a conviction.

 It's easy to see what's really going on here. They can and will never get any credibility with their mystical experiences being anything other than dreams and hallucinations as long as objectivity exists, so they have to do their best to dismiss it.

 



Theists like objectivity very much. Theistic Realism says that a Perfect Being creating the universe is something that can be empirically proven and objectively proven to be true. Dawkins stated, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." However, for a Theistic realist, they complicated organisms or what not are seen as to having design because they have objectively found evidence that supports design. For example, the complicated machine of the flagellum is a sum of parts that create the propellor-like engine. A mouse trap has several parts that function to catch pesky rodents. If one of these parts are taken away (platform, hammer, etc.), then this mouse trap is no longer capable of carrying out its function. The flagellum is the same thing, because the parts must be together and functioning in their individual places and functions. If not, this flagellum would not function as the device that makes these microbes mobile, which then means death of the microbes or what not. 

Also, what do you think about the scientist putting a single-cell in a "perfect environment" inside of a test tube, and then breaking it open. The parts of a cell are all there, clearly, and no matter how long it stays there, humpty-dumpty will never be put back together again. Unless, some sort of force that is not supposed to be there comes out of the nothingness. That something has to be something supernatural, because anything natural would not make any sense in the nothingness. A mouse trap's hammer will never become a mouse trap on its own. 
 

 

Thanks for reading.

-jn


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Irreducible complexity

Irreducible complexity failed the test and was discarded more than a decade ago.
Also, your understanding of evolution is flawed.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13663
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Like how

Vastet wrote:
Like how Americans grow up getting taught they won WW1 & 2 all by themselves even though they had less impact than ANY other allied nation? :P

I totally agree.

Our history is so sugar coated with garbage.

"The pilgrims came over here to escape religious tyranny"

NO, they came over here to set up their own tribal clicks. Freedom of religion didn't start until the signing of the Constitution, First Amendment and bill of rights because of people like Thomas Paine and Jefferson and the age of enlightenment in spite of the theocratic pilgrims.

"We settled America".

NO, we fucking invaded it and ran the people living in it off their land.

And that too. The idiots who think America won those wars by themselves are morons. There is a reason it is called a WORLD WAR, because the world was involved.

"The pledge says under God"

BUT WE DID NOT ALWAYS HAVE A FUCKING PLEDGE, and when we finally did the original did NOT contain "under God" because the guy who wrote it intended it for EVERYONE.

"In God We Trust"

Again, was not put on money from the onset, it was first put on coins in the late 1800s but not all coins, and did not get put on all money until the 1950s. And even then it was a clear violation of government favoring Christianity over all others because even the legislation with the coins, was written by Christians solely to promote Christianity.

"Christian nation"

BULL SHIT! Freedom of religion does not constitute a theocracy. Our freedom on the issue of religion DEPENDS on government staying neutral on the issue.

"As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" Article 11 Barbary Treaty, signed without dissent by both houses of congress, June 10th 1797 by President John Adams.

Backed up by "No religious test" in the requirements of the oath of office, and backed up by the establishment clause in the First Amendment.

Our country severely lacks civics history and is peddled utopia Christian garbage.

EDIT, and our congress from day one didn't give a shit about December 25th as a public holiday for 67 years. That crap started AFTER the original founders long since left office and died. I doubt any of the founders would have wanted a public holiday over such a divisive issue that they knew was best left up to the individual.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the

Welcome to the forum.

Trinity123 wrote:
Unless, some sort of force that is not supposed to be there comes out of the nothingness. That something has to be something supernatural, because anything natural would not make any sense in the nothingness.

Okay then, since it makes sense for 'supernatural' 'things,' can you explain in detail how something supernatural would come out of the 'nothingness?'

Trinity123 wrote:
A mouse trap's hammer will never become a mouse trap on its own.

No, but it can sexually reproduce with other hammers and take down mice by surrounding them and hammering them to death, right? 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13663
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Unless, some sort of

Quote:
Unless, some sort of force that is not supposed to be there comes out of the nothingness. That something has to be something supernatural, because anything natural would not make any sense in the nothingness.

No, what you have done is mentally filled a gap with your own whim by assuming.

Not knowing something only means you don't know something, "super natural" does not define anything. There are plenty of things in the past that humans chalked up to the "super natural" that we know now have natural explanations.

That "something" does not have to be a thinking thing or super natural. Even Stephen Hakwins says that a god is not required to explain anything about life or the universe.

Do we know what came before the big bang, before the "singularity", no. But since those two events were not shaped like a brain nor did they function like a brain, they cannot  be considered to have the same ability of a brain.

Science continues to work on solving what came before, but the scientists who do that are not postulating a magical super brain with a magic wand.

That would be like saying a tire can be the entire car at the same time. Or the tire doesn't exist because we cant see the air in it.

God claims however, new age woo or old myth, come from our natural flaw as a species in the fact that far too often we default to filling in the gap rather than test to insure quality of data.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5850
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"Supernatural" something

"Supernatural" something coming from nothing makes no more or less sense than something 'natural'. 

The supernatural/natural distinction is not a fundamental one, it is simply between what we currently have some sort of explanation for, and that which we don't.

So arguments based on the "supernatural" are just arguments from ignorance.

Quantum Mechanics does point to the finite probability of something coming from nothing, as in virtual particle pairs.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Trinity123 wrote:Marty

Trinity123 wrote:

Marty Hamrick wrote:

  Theists have a real problem with objectivity. So much so that they want to wish it into the realm of illusion, quoting Imanual Kant when it suits them.

  Some get really upset and passionate when you tell them that there's no objective evidence for their mythos, they'll go on and on about how all human experience is subjective and how nothing is really objective because it's all percieved by human beings with subjective points of view.

  Have these people never balenced a checkbook? Do they ever look at their speedometers to see how fast they're going, or is that just a subjective human experience? Is there really no way you can tell how fast your car is going because the speedometer is subjective because the person who built it was having a subjective human experience when he built it? What about your experience in reading the speedometer? That's subjective too and the cop's radar, I suppose that's subjective as well? I suppose the cop and the state have to rely on the subjective experience of jurors to get a conviction.

 It's easy to see what's really going on here. They can and will never get any credibility with their mystical experiences being anything other than dreams and hallucinations as long as objectivity exists, so they have to do their best to dismiss it.

 



Theists like objectivity very much...

Yep. Agreed.

The absence of God would make it HARDER to speak about objective, absolute truth.

Science / laws of nature which give meaning to "stuff" wouldnt conform to anything - they wouldnt need to. Chaos theory wouldnt even exist because in order to perceive chaos you need a datum - order.

Objective morality - pretty fundamental to most common theistic ethics - wouldnt exist. And optional/subjective morals actually nulify the very word "morality".

...in much the same way as an infinite number of definitions of marriage nulify the concept of marriage. (square circles anyone?) 

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5850
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The existence of a being

The existence of a being with such power would destroy the possibility of confidence in anything, since such a being could change anything about reality at any instant.

Order is a prerequisite for any kind of complex system, such as consciousness, of any kind.

Objective morality cannot arise from the edicts of a God, all you that gives you is a dictatorship of "do this, or else".

It can only be based on an understanding of what causes harm and distress to members of your society, and what they will find positive and life-enhancing. The qualities of empathy and compassion drive moral behaviour.

Religion provides a perversion of morality.

The emergence and evolution of life requires a balance of both order and randomness, order to allow persistent complex systems to exist, randomness to allow them to emerge and evolve. Pure order would be a static sterile reality, pure randomness would be a buzzing chaos.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
God versus certainty? Come on Bob!

BobSpence wrote:

The existence of a being with such power would destroy the possibility of confidence in anything, since such a being could change anything about reality at any instant...

Yeah, He could, sure.

If He wanted to.

BobSpence wrote:
...Order is a prerequisite for any kind of complex system, such as consciousness, of any kind.

Who says God lacks consciousness? Atheists deny His existence, but for the sake of THIS argument can't you at least grant the concession that designer is aware of what He is doing?

 

BobSpence wrote:
...Objective morality cannot arise from the edicts of a God, all you that gives you is a dictatorship of "do this, or else".

You just got through saying order is a prerequisite for complexity. Surely, agreed moral precepts are part of what allows this complex system (humanity) to function. And why do you insert the notion of dictatorship? That's unusual from coming from you. In my theology, just as in your "atheology," - for want of a convenient term - humans WANT to follow accepted moral precepts.

 

BobSpence wrote:
...It can only be based on an understanding of what causes harm and distress to members of your society, and what they will find positive and life-enhancing. The qualities of empathy and compassion drive moral behaviour.

Agreed.

 

BobSpence wrote:
...Religion provides a perversion of morality.

Nope. Your definition of religion describes it that way. But you have to concede religion, even if it WAS perverse, is virtually universal and thus far...persistent. Darwinian evolutionary biology certainly doesnt seem to object to it.  

 

BobSpence wrote:
...The emergence and evolution of life requires a balance of both order and randomness, order to allow persistent complex systems to exist, randomness to allow them to emerge and evolve. Pure order would be a static sterile reality, pure randomness would be a buzzing chaos.

This is just opinion you realise. Interesting. And some of it seems intuitively right. But we dont KNOW that evolution "requires" a balance of "order" and "randomness" - abstract/metaphysical terms to say the least.

What's that thing they say about quantum mechanics?

...A fuzzy view of a clear reality or a clear view of a fuzzy reality...

By all means we can speculate and philosophize about "static sterile reality" but we arent... THERE ...yet. If anything, it seems to me that we are getting further and further away. Model-dependent theories of reality (M-theory) etc.

 

BTW - I enjoy reading your posts.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Irreducible

Vastet wrote:
Irreducible complexity failed the test and was discarded more than a decade ago. Also, your understanding of evolution is flawed.

It was discarded DECADES ago.

The problem with "irreducible complexity" is that the examples which are chosen are often not "irreducibly complex".  For example, the "eye" wasn't a fully-formed human eye going back to our earliest evolutionary ancestors (who had no eyes at all ...), and if you look at the development of the human eye, from conception through birth, it reflects how an "eye" can become an "eye" without being fully-formed at the moment of conception.

There are two types of ignorance -- active and passive -- and the people who are clinging to concepts like "irreducible complexity" are very =actively= struggling to remain ignorant.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:The

BobSpence wrote:

The existence of a being with such power would destroy the possibility of confidence in anything, since such a being could change anything about reality at any instant.

I agree with you that G-d is not a Cosmic Puppet Master who randomly violates whatever Laws of Nature you seem to be regarding as "Reality".  Glad we agree that at least Cosmic Puppet Master Strawgod is dead.

Quote:
Order is a prerequisite for any kind of complex system, such as consciousness, of any kind.

Objective morality cannot arise from the edicts of a God, all you that gives you is a dictatorship of "do this, or else".

It can only be based on an understanding of what causes harm and distress to members of your society, and what they will find positive and life-enhancing. The qualities of empathy and compassion drive moral behaviour.

Religion provides a perversion of morality.

Should that be taken as some kind of "proof" of the non-existence of god and/or gods, or only as proof that the Cosmic Puppet Master Strawgod is dead?  I often lose track of the number of false gods which are created and destroyed by Atheists who seem to never lack for straw, but often lack for Logic.

The Law of Gravity does not care if you believe in it or not, but I assure you, Gravity will send you just as quickly to the grave should you reject it as the claims of Exclusivist Religions insist you will be consigned to some form of Hell should you reject them.  Nature is no less harsh an Ultimate and Final Judge as the Bearded Old White Guys which some insist are seated on thrones, casting Non-Believers into fiery pits of Hell.  You accept one, and reject all manner of the other.

Having rejected the notion of any sort of Divine Lawgiver, you appeal to Empathy and Compassion as the source Morality, without having anything as unforgiving as the source of the Law of Gravity for its enforcement.

I assure you that nothing in Nature requires Empathy and Compassion.  The lion gives not a single care about the "feelings" of a gazelle when it rips out its throat prior to turning it into lunch.  I have watched animals stalk and kill other animals.  Empathy and Compassion are not properties of the Natural World.  In Exodus 23:9, we are commanded to have Empathy and Compassion, properties which Nature -- the very Nature you worship as your god -- refuses to do anything to command.  The god you worship is truly and completely silent on the very things you claim "drive" moral behavior.  The snake eats the mouse whole, and having see the look on the face of a mouse about to be turned into a snack, it is not one I'd associate with an act of Empathy or Compassion.  Your god commands neither empathy nor compassion, and yet you appeal to both, where at least my G-d has commanded us to behave in that manner.

I think I'll stick with my G-d and leave you to yours.

Quote:
The emergence and evolution of life requires a balance of both order and randomness, order to allow persistent complex systems to exist, randomness to allow them to emerge and evolve. Pure order would be a static sterile reality, pure randomness would be a buzzing chaos.

Ah, Yin and Yang.  I recognize that.  You have a future as a Taoist.

Should you ever decide that Empathy and Compassion require something more than Wishful Thinking for their enforcement as "laws", you might have a future as a Theist of some sort.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13663
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The absence of God

Quote:
The absence of God would make it HARDER to speak about objective, absolute truth.

No, giving up on bad claims speaking of those bad claims as absolute moral law givers is what has progressed humanity. It is why we don't burn witches and have slavery. It is why women can vote now.

Assuming a god to fill the gap is pessimism. It says once we hit a wall, it assumes we can never find the answer.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Gold standard

I find it ironic that the folk who emphasize empiricism, Baconian principles, scientism, and so forth, dont seem to understand or can't relate to the concept of a divine, supreme Being as He applies to what science would call a "datum" or base line.

Notions such as;

- objective morality,

- absolute truth,

- justice, 

- human rights,

- etc

...seem to BEG for a universal yardstick, an umpire, an absolute zero against which the empirically-minded human can assess them.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Invisible entities don't

Invisible entities don't provide baselines.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Invisible

Vastet wrote:
Invisible entities don't provide baselines.

Well, that's sort of assuming the conclusion.

There is a "natural source" of "scientific law" -- you drop a rock, it hits the ground, floor or your toe.  And yet, when people here say "I want a secular society in which XYZ values are present", there's either some claim that the "XYZ values" are "good" or should be "universal" or something else of that sort -- I see a lot of "empathy and compassion" types of claims.

Yet, the basic laws of Nature are that big animals eat little animals and they don't give a flip.  Do you think that's the right approach for human beings?  Might makes right, eat the poor, kill grandma, turn fat people into biodiesel to power my HumVee?

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Canibalism is rare in

Canibalism is rare in nature. Generally, fighting between members of the same species is reserved to displays and non-lethal conflict. There are exceptions of course, but they are rare. Even more so in mammals.

All indications from nature suggest we are strongest when working together. Which doesn't preclude us from chowing down on other species and not thinking about it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Canibalism is

Vastet wrote:
Canibalism is rare in nature. Generally, fighting between members of the same species is reserved to displays and non-lethal conflict. There are exceptions of course, but they are rare. Even more so in mammals. All indications from nature suggest we are strongest when working together. Which doesn't preclude us from chowing down on other species and not thinking about it.

I didn't mean =literally= eating the poor.  I'm talking about the way the current financial upper-class has decided that they can screw over whomever they can screw over, all in the pursuit of a larger pile of money.  Soylent Green is still just a movie, though I'm sure some American Conservatives have their plans ...

Back to my comment --

I'm sure that "We" are strongest when some of "We" are forced by "something" to give "Our" stuff to "Those People".

When I look at the writings of people like Locke or Jefferson, I don't exactly see Atheists.  If your "All indications from nature suggest we are strongest when working together" is true, the source of that "truth" is something other than "Nature" because all indications from "Nature" are that "Might makes right".  A bull moose really =will= kill for the right to mate with whatever females are in the herd.  A lion really =will= kill the off-spring of another lion in the pride.  That's what "Nature" has to say on the subject.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13663
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote:Trinity123

Lion IRC wrote:

Trinity123 wrote:

Marty Hamrick wrote:

  Theists have a real problem with objectivity. So much so that they want to wish it into the realm of illusion, quoting Imanual Kant when it suits them.

  Some get really upset and passionate when you tell them that there's no objective evidence for their mythos, they'll go on and on about how all human experience is subjective and how nothing is really objective because it's all percieved by human beings with subjective points of view.

  Have these people never balenced a checkbook? Do they ever look at their speedometers to see how fast they're going, or is that just a subjective human experience? Is there really no way you can tell how fast your car is going because the speedometer is subjective because the person who built it was having a subjective human experience when he built it? What about your experience in reading the speedometer? That's subjective too and the cop's radar, I suppose that's subjective as well? I suppose the cop and the state have to rely on the subjective experience of jurors to get a conviction.

 It's easy to see what's really going on here. They can and will never get any credibility with their mystical experiences being anything other than dreams and hallucinations as long as objectivity exists, so they have to do their best to dismiss it.

 



Theists like objectivity very much...

Yep. Agreed.

The absence of God would make it HARDER to speak about objective, absolute truth.

Science / laws of nature which give meaning to "stuff" wouldnt conform to anything - they wouldnt need to. Chaos theory wouldnt even exist because in order to perceive chaos you need a datum - order.

Objective morality - pretty fundamental to most common theistic ethics - wouldnt exist. And optional/subjective morals actually nulify the very word "morality".

...in much the same way as an infinite number of definitions of marriage nulify the concept of marriage. (square circles anyone?) 

 

You know this is a bullshit argument and an intellectually dishonest tactic because you don't use it to prop up the sky daddy claims others make. Otherwise if it works for you it should work for everyone. It's retrofitting after the fact and selection bias.

The absence of God will free us to shed that myth and superstition so that we can find real solutions to the real problems all of humanity faces.

You are merely defending gap filling, nothing more. You can dress the empty box up all you want but it is still empty.

Quote:
Objective morality - pretty fundamental to most common theistic ethics -

The same objective morality that says it is ok to take girls and women as prizes in war? The same morality that puts wives in the same category as cattle? The same morality that condones or allows genocide? The same morality that has a book in which you can find no objection to rape in regards to the feelings of the woman being raped?

Isiah 45:7 "I create good, I create evil, I the lord do all these things". Yep, you can have it both ways when you burn the candle at both ends. Makes it easy to move the goal posts.

That's not morality, that is the behavior of a madman.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13663
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:When I look at the

Quote:
When I look at the writings of people like Locke or Jefferson

I know this thread is bouncing around but I am glad you brought up Jefferson. Even on the issue of economics Jefferson was not a "Libertarian" on all issues. I am sure he would have been a social Libertarian, but most certainly he wouldn't have been a Soviet Communist, or a Chinese socialist, but he wouldn't be for the abuse of money in politics we have today.

He got burned by banks and died broke. He valued private business by he was most certainly for checks and balances even in the private sector. Something lost on people like Beyond.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Yes, but more often the

Yes, but more often the inferior fighter will retreat. Battles to the death are generally reserved for predator/prey and defence of a nest.
Also, a lion killing offspring is a lion trying to get laid. It isn't a problem in our species. Females are willing sexual partners even with a dozen children.
And I can come up with counter examples. Wolves and dolphins are, like us, social predators who work together constantly. Dolphins even have millenia of history of combining their efforts with another species: us. We build a net, they chase the fish in, we throw them a bunch as reward. Both species profit from their cooperation. That is also nature.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Please. Dont call me intellectually dishonest.

Brian37 wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:

Trinity123 wrote:

Marty Hamrick wrote:

  Theists have a real problem with objectivity. So much so that they want to wish it into the realm of illusion, quoting Imanual Kant when it suits them.

  Some get really upset and passionate when you tell them that there's no objective evidence for their mythos, they'll go on and on about how all human experience is subjective and how nothing is really objective because it's all percieved by human beings with subjective points of view.

  Have these people never balenced a checkbook? Do they ever look at their speedometers to see how fast they're going, or is that just a subjective human experience? Is there really no way you can tell how fast your car is going because the speedometer is subjective because the person who built it was having a subjective human experience when he built it? What about your experience in reading the speedometer? That's subjective too and the cop's radar, I suppose that's subjective as well? I suppose the cop and the state have to rely on the subjective experience of jurors to get a conviction.

 It's easy to see what's really going on here. They can and will never get any credibility with their mystical experiences being anything other than dreams and hallucinations as long as objectivity exists, so they have to do their best to dismiss it.

 



Theists like objectivity very much...

Yep. Agreed.

The absence of God would make it HARDER to speak about objective, absolute truth.

Science / laws of nature which give meaning to "stuff" wouldnt conform to anything - they wouldnt need to. Chaos theory wouldnt even exist because in order to perceive chaos you need a datum - order.

Objective morality - pretty fundamental to most common theistic ethics - wouldnt exist. And optional/subjective morals actually nulify the very word "morality".

...in much the same way as an infinite number of definitions of marriage nulify the concept of marriage. (square circles anyone?) 

 

You know this is a bullshit argument and an intellectually dishonest tactic because you don't use it to prop up the sky daddy claims others make. Otherwise if it works for you it should work for everyone. It's retrofitting after the fact and selection bias...

Dont call me intellectually dishonest.

Nothing I posted above rests on something I can't/dont completely stand by.

It's not some throwaway statement about "objective morality" that I would/could only ever make to an atheist while nobody else was listening.  In fact the same reasoning applies to disputes BETWEEN THEISTS about morailty.  

It applies in business managment heirarchies where disputes are arbitrated by a higher authority.

It applies among primate groups which rely on an Alpha Male.

It applies on the sporting field when an objective umpire is listening to both sides arguing whether a rule was or wasnt broken.

 

...I'm beginning to get the idea that atheists have an ulterior motive for denying the value/existence of a Higher Objective Authority

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You're presupposing that

You're presupposing that humanity is incapable of independently creating a system of morality. That only a god could do so. The evidence says otherwise. Multiple social species other than humans have been observed to hold morals. Add to that, that every human culture to exist has had ethics.
The evidence that these ethics are NOT absolute is in the fact that many observed and recorded systems of societal morality are directly in conflict with one another.
The only way out of the logic trap is even more presupposition. Spawn of, or influence by, demons; and willful ignorance, are the most common presuppositions.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Furthermore, none of your

Furthermore, none of your supposed examples of objectivity are valid.

"It applies in business managment heirarchies where disputes are arbitratedby a higher authority."

The higher authority is subjective to the higher authority.

"It applies among primate groups which rely on an Alpha Male"

The alpha male is subjective to the alpha male.

"It applies on the sporting field when an objective umpire is listening to both sides arguing whether a rule was or wasnt broken."

The umpire is subjective to the umpire.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13663
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote:.I'm

Lion IRC wrote:
.I'm beginning to get the idea that atheists have an ulterior motive for denying the value/existence of a Higher Objective Authority

Cut the code language and stupid ad homin distractions and conspiracy crap.

We DO have a motive. And that is not to create a lawless society. Our motive is to get people like you off your needless delusion, no more no less.

We DO reject absolute power such as dictators like Kim Jong Ill and Hitler. So if you don't like dictators either why do you worship one?

Western secular cultures that protect pluralism and decent do not have unmovable rulers. The god/s of Abraham are unmovable.

We value consent and and oversight and scrutiny. Your god character values submission to his authority, the opposite of how real life governance in pluralistic societies happens.

We deny that a god is needed to do good or be moral. We deny that the god of the bible is good or moral AS A CHARACTER, not a real god.

No conspiracy going on here. No "ulterior" motive. Just you peddling a mythological god and you getting upset when we tell you the truth about the nature of reality. That is your baggage, not ours.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
No genuine altruism, i.e.

No genuine altruism, i.e. helping others at the expense of the self, has to exist to explain behavior or should exist in general. Humans being ostensibly selfless doesn't indicate that we somehow transcend natural selection; that really has no supporting evidence and is a horrific failure of Occam's Razor.

The simple explanation is that evolution has not had nearly enough time to keep up with the development of human civilization. It can just be apparent altruism; for example, reciprocal altruism, which is selected for by evolution as long as the scenario 'A helps B, then B helps A' benefits individuals A and B more than neither of them helping each other.  

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Lion IRC

Brian37 wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:
.I'm beginning to get the idea that atheists have an ulterior motive for denying the value/existence of a Higher Objective Authority

Cut the code language and stupid ad homin distractions and conspiracy crap...

Ad hominem? Where? I accused you of something you admit below.

Brian37 wrote:
We DO have a motive...

Brian37 wrote:
...And that is not to create a lawless society.
 

Agreed. We are talking about who makes the laws, not a lawless society. (Although anarchy/atheism is a living meme.)

Brian37 wrote:
...Our motive is to get people like you off your needless delusion, no more no less...

Thats not the motive. Thats the action which follows from a motive(s). Don't tell me I'm not allowed to speculate on other peoples' motives. Especially since I saw you make the point in another thread that atheists DONT all think alike.

Brian37 wrote:
We DO reject absolute power such as dictators like Kim Jong Ill and Hitler...

These two didnt have "absolute" power. Isolated. Hated. Lost the war. Died. Etc.

 

Brian37 wrote:
...So if you don't like dictators either why do you worship one?..

Who said I dont like ANY/ALL dictators. Come one Mr clear thinker. Ever heard of benign dictatorship? Ever heard of democracies CHOOSING their leader? You're also missing the point that the existence of (what you would call) a "Celestial Dictator," would be a pretty good reason to cooperate with the inevitable. Entropy is a celestial dictator. Gravity is a celestial dictator. Radiation is a celestial dictator. What are you gonna do about them?

 

Brian37 wrote:
...Western secular cultures that protect pluralism and decent do not have unmovable rulers...

People that like apples eat them. Secular cultures are secular. Unpopular rulers get overthrown in revolutions.

 

Brian37 wrote:
...The god/s of Abraham are unmovable.

And obedience is voluntary.

 

Brian37 wrote:
...We value consent and and oversight and scrutiny.

Yes we do. And fortunately we have The Law to ENFORCE that which we value. Anarchy would suck!

 

Brian37 wrote:
...Your god character values submission to his authority, the opposite of how real life governance in pluralistic societies happens.

The police value obedience to THE law. The law maker values obedience to THE law. No argument there.

Where I would disagree is that God values submission to His own Authority for some megalomaniac reason. Theologically, the value in obeying God derives TO US not to Him. He doesnt need us to obey Him.

 

Brian37 wrote:
We deny that a god is needed to do good or be moral.

Yeah. I heard you the first time.

Do you also deny that police speed cameras are effective or that undercover cops detect people behaving differently than they would in front of a uniformed officer?

 

Brian37 wrote:
We deny that the god of the bible is good or moral AS A CHARACTER, not a real god.

Yeah. I heard you the first time. LOL. BTW. Merry Christmas in case I forget to say it.

Brian37 wrote:
No conspiracy going on here. No "ulterior" motive. Just you peddling a mythological god and you getting upset when we tell you the truth about the nature of reality. That is your baggage, not ours.

My baggage. Exactly. I like it just the way it is. Thanks anyway.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Do you also deny that

Quote:
Do you also deny that police speed cameras are effective or that undercover cops detect people behaving differently than they would in front of a uniformed officer?

Do you deny that religion is insufficient deterrent? That a majority of incarcerated criminals are theists? If your god were really a deterrent, why are so many theists not deterred? Leads one to conclude either they don't really believe in a god watching over them, or that it's useless as a deterrent.
Compare the number of people who committed a crime in front of a cop to those who did it in front of a god. Looks to me like the cops are actually effective. Your god, not so much.

Happy holidays. Eye-wink

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

 

Vastet wrote:
Quote:
Do you also deny that police speed cameras are effective or that undercover cops detect people behaving differently than they would in front of a uniformed officer?
Do you deny that religion is insufficient deterrent? That a majority of incarcerated criminals are theists? If your god were really a deterrent, why are so many theists not deterred? Leads one to conclude either they don't really believe in a god watching over them, or that it's useless as a deterrent. Compare the number of people who committed a crime in front of a cop to those who did it in front of a god. Looks to me like the cops are actually effective. Your god, not so much. Happy holidays. Eye-wink

 

This reminds me of the bit Dan Dennett did in Breaking The Spell.  If you believe that God doesn't want you to masturbate, and you really believe that He is everywhere and can see everything and is all-powerful, how could you possibly get aroused when you do masturbate?  That would be like having your parents in the room with you watching -- you would never be able to get off.  So, they must not believe in God if they do things they aren't supposed to do with God supposedly watching, or doing things that are actually wrong like killing an innocent person or raping someone.


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Holy days

Vastet wrote:
Quote:
Do you also deny that police speed cameras are effective or that undercover cops detect people behaving differently than they would in front of a uniformed officer?

Do you deny that religion is insufficient deterrent?

Which religion? Some speed cameras ARE defective. There is police corruption in places. 

 

Vastet wrote:
...That a majority of incarcerated criminals are theists?..

...yes, jail is a good place to repent and turn to God. But there are atheists in jail too. The difficulty is getting them to self-identify (Come Out of the Closet.) A bit like atheists/pedophiles hiding in the clergy pretending to be something they are not.

 

Vastet wrote:
...If your god were really a deterrent, why are so many theists not deterred?

"so many" isnt very empirical now is it?

 

Vastet wrote:
...Leads one to conclude either they don't really believe in a god watching over them, or that it's useless as a deterrent.

I dislike those either/or false dilemma "conclusions".

Neither of your two optional conclusions is one I would jump to.

 

 

Vastet wrote:
...Compare the number of people who committed a crime in front of a cop to those who did it in front of a god. Looks to me like the cops are actually effective. Your god, not so much.

LOL. I'm comparing the cops, the law WITH God. And you're agreeing that cops are effective.

 

Vastet wrote:
...Happy holidays. Eye-wink

Thanks. Holy days indeed.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote:Which

Lion IRC wrote:
Which religion? Some speed cameras ARE defective. There is police corruption in places.

Actually, they are all defective.
There are sufficient populations of every currently practiced religion in the prison population to determine that no religion is without criminals, and suggesting police corruption is responsible for the incarceration of all members of any religion is ridiculous to an extreme, so answer the question and quit dodging.

Lion IRC wrote:
...yes, jail is a good place to repent and turn to God. But there are atheists in jail too. The difficulty is getting them to self-identify (Come Out of the Closet.) A bit like atheists/pedophiles hiding in the clergy pretending to be something they are not.

There are more theists in prison than atheists, and the majority of prisoners were theists before they committed an offence in the first place.

Lion IRC wrote:
"so many" isnt very empirical now is it?

Sure it is. I don't need a wall of statistics....

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
...Just one member of a

...Just one member of a religion committing a crime proves the religion is not sufficient deterrent to prevent crime. And since every religion has examples of criminals, you are out on a limb without a net.

Lion IRC wrote:
I dislike those either/or false dilemma "conclusions".Neither of your two optional conclusions is one I would jump to.

What's another one? Remember not to use the fallacy of presupposition.
If you can't, then your accusation of a false dilemma is reduced to an attempt to distract us from the fact you still haven't answered the questions.

Lion IRC wrote:
LOL. I'm comparing the cops, the law WITH God. And you're agreeing that cops are effective.

You missed the part where I pointed out that god isn't anywhere near as effective as a police officer.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.