I've De-De-Converted....

ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
I've De-De-Converted....

Been a while... I have some bad (or good news depending on how you look at it)...

I've de-de-converted.... Sorry if this comes as a shock... call me irrational or whatever.. just thought I'd let you guys know.

I've following in the footsteps of others, I suppose: Flew, McGrath, Lewis, Collins, among others...

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:redneF

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

redneF wrote:
There is a system to determine if god exists. It's called dying.  

Why can't you wait and see if there's one, like many of us can?

Wrong. According to the theory, God is waiting till you're dead to give you the necessary evidence of his existence to 'believe' in him. This will take form in 1 of 2 ways. Either you can hang out with him minus your free will, or he can torture you. Both will last for eternity.

Well... in any case, we'll both find out one day. If it is all the same, then I rather be on the winning side than the losing... eh?

That's what I thought, and why I asked you what was missing in your life.

Now I know. You are wagering that there is a wrathful god.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

redneF wrote:

I think you need a dictionary. 'zero-sum' doesn't mean what you think it means.

I think what you're mostly meaning to say when you say 'zero-sum' is that you have nothing to lose, and everything to gain if you believe instead of being skeptical of notions of the supernatural.

I'm pretty sure I know what it means. Whatever is gained is lost resulting in no net gain...

Between 2 or more people. They both don't lose, but can gain.

In your application what your are saying is 'you win some, you lose some', which is not a zero sum game.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
If you so care as so supply another defintion, by all means do. Until then, you have taught me nothing.

I've done better, I've given you the correct definition.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
...this is problem I have with evidence-based reasoning that attempts to approach god.

That makes no sense. We used technology to study the stars, but have never actually gotten any closer to them till we got into space, and then got marginally closer.

You still have to explain what the 'problem' with 'evidence-based reasoning' is, and why you believe 'faith-based reasoning' is something that needs to be resorted to.

So, I'll ask again, what's missing in your life that makes you anxious about knowing if there is a supernatural or not?

 

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

redneF wrote:

Nothing. Which is why we don't see evidence that he does.

That's like getting mad at a scarecrow then.

That's why people use the qualifier 'if' (a), then (b).

If god exists, then (b)...

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
But at the same time, if nothing obligates the being to act, then you have no grounds for grievances either...

Not true. I have my own mind, and that I can make up my own mind about what is 'just'.

Punishing the son for the sins of the father is not just, not even according to the theist's worldview, since evil exists because of the 'father', and who is the very first 'father'?

Any guesses?

Why would the 'creator' of everything good and bad be exempt from 'justice'? Ohhhhh, because there isn't a 'society' of gods that he lives amongst? Wouldn't that be convenient for him?

The problem is, it is 'logically' possible in some world where 'creation' was a collaborative effort among a pantheon of gods. Now, in this possible world, where would the 'ultimate' law be derived from????

I imagine there would be no moratorium of justice in heaven, like there is on earth, and therefore no 'evil' people running around causing suffering to others for their own gain. I would be totally justified in having a grievance for god being able to be as 'just' while we are on earth, but not exercising that power to mitigate suffering.

He is actually an accomplice to anyone who commits 'evil'.

Sorry, the whole concept of a loving and just god is simply untenable but by a masochist.

 

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

redneF wrote:

Strawman.

Rejecting an argument from antiquity isn't a fallacious reasoning.

Lookup appeal to novelty...

I don't think you understand what an appeal to novelty is, either.

No one here has argued that anything is more accurate or even more probable simply because it's a newer argument.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

redneF wrote:

Philosophy is the intellectually poor man's substitute for accurate knowledge and understanding. It tests understandings against understandings. Science tests reality.

No competition.

Whether you like it or not, science is philosophy...

No. The terms are not interchangeable.

A philosophical naturalist holds that particles and energy is all that exists.  Science is based on methodological naturalism in that it only tests what is testable. It has no comment to make on the supernatural since the ones who claim the supernatural exists have nothing but their hopes that there are things outside of the natural world.

The onus is on the one making the positive claim that a supernatural exists, and the only way they can do that is demonstrate the laws of physics can/have been violated. The Vatican would love just 1 example of the laws of physics being violated, but they've only managed to argue from ignorance, in order to fallaciously inflate the odds of probability, which is dishonest and a fallacy.

IOW, you have not found anything new, except a renewed hope that there is a supernatural, an after life, and your fear that there might be a wrathful god that could punish you for eternity, otherwise, you'd be an agnostic atheist.

I'd congratulate you, except that's not being rational, so, I'd only be enabling you.

I wouldn't do it to my own child, and I wouldn't do it to my fellow man (sic) either.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Since there IS, pretty much

Since there IS, pretty much by definition, no way to know anything about what lies beyond the scope of any kind of objective, checkable evidence, all your speculations about anything in such a context are utterly pointless, at least as it relates to any kind of truth about ultimate reality.

All you are doing is wrestling with your own subjective feelings and ideas.

So you are being utterly irrational, unless you concede you are doing it to maximize your personal mental comfort levels.

You also have abandoned ethics and morality, in your refusing to acknowledge the "problem of evil".

You are being totally close-minded about all this, in refusing to acknowledge these plain FACTS.

In your refusal to acknowledge the possibility that you have got this whole thing totally wrong.

When you start throwing around such accusations within the context where there is such a fundamental disagreement about how we can 'know', about what categories of discourse can lead to knowledge of any sort, you also miss the point. 

Am I being close-minded in rejecting the point-of-view of someone who so blatantly rejects the most fundamental basis for 'knowing'?

Would I be close-minded in refusing to accept a totally incoherent set pf ideas, which is damn close to describing what you are putting forth?

You are close-minded in refusing to acknowledge that the supernatural 'possibilities' extend to vastly more options than some new variation on the 'God' concept that still has some connection with the religious ideas. By the title of your post, you are restricting the possibilities you are entertaining to such a context. Otherwise, using the word 'conversion' makes no sense.

If you are just wanting to 'open' your mind to considering 'supernatural' options, you really are opening your mind so far that your brain has fallen out,

Supernatural is not just a label for the unknown, it is a label for the unknowable.

I laughed at Pascal because of the totally irrational and illogical ideas displayed by a famous 'philosopher'. Up to that point I had given him the 'benefit of the doubt' that the Wager was just a hiccup in a generally coherent set of ideas. 

Your idea of 'Philosophy' reduces the word to referring to little more than something like 'discourse', or 'study'.

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Chuckles wearily

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Ubuntu, you are not all seeing, all knowing and all powerful. If bad shit happened in front of you, there's no question as to whether or not you would know what to do. The god concept on the other hand; knows, is empowered to act, does not act. 

Why should the a god act? What requires such a being to do any thing at all?

 

Ok, my inherited god concept. We'll have to stop pinning the abrahamic tail on your deistic donkey...

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Even if

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

 

Whether you like it or not, science is philosophy....

 

 

Even if scientific thought originated with philosophers like Democritus, the modern scientific method can't be compared with philosophy... 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This is just what I wonder, too

 

Gauche wrote:

What consequences are you trying to avoid?

 

Though it's clear Ubuntu's convictions are not monotheistic. Instead he has something called the Kierkegaard system... 

Kierkegaard insisted that before the objective came the subjective - that in effect what was real and knowable for humans was by default, subjective. This isn't anything we've not considered before nor is it something experiments cannot be loaded to ignore. It's always seemed to me that the scientific method by its nature side stepped or recognised and accounted for bias and subjectivity. Raw data certainly does so.

Kierkegaard's religious premise is that humans are too close to the material. Mmmm. Anyway, as a fan of Schopenhauer he exhibits subtle but clear signs of the east - his religious positions feel Buddhist to me. Kierkegaard also connects ethics directly to religion and I decry this position. There's no empirical evidence that suggests such a connection. Secular and religious people are equally capable of displaying ethical human behaviours. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:Brian37

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Bottom line, there is NO evidence of a non material magical super brain with magical super powers.

If there is no evidence, then what I said about evidenced based reasoning is true -- it's zero-sum, and thus why I went to secondary modes of justification. I think if one is honest, it isn't that there is no evidence, rather that there is no evidence that you find compelling or convincing... Even as an atheist I would grant that.

Brian37 wrote:

Smart and elaborate dont equal right. Newton was a smart man but the alchemy he once postulated was bunk.

No one is disagreeing with you on this, so why bring it it up?

Brian37 wrote:

No you don't "respet" the position of atheist otherwise you wouldn't have gone back.

I hate the word "respect', I like to use the word "value". I value what can be proven. I don't "respect" claims. Claims don't deserve respect. Claims should be thrashed over and over and over. If they come out the other side as universal, then I value them. But merely making a claim is nothing.

If you want to split hairs over something that is remotely tangential to what I said, that's fine. But it does not change what I said about respecting what I learned from atheism...

Brian37 wrote:

You know that a hurricane is not caused by an ocean god, but non cognitive conditions, a process. So why would evolution OR the universe need a cognition?

Who said anything about evolution, the universe, or hurricanes? Are you trying to pigeon hole me as something I'm not? Being a theist has no necessary implications on these things...

Luis was smart as a writer but he was no scientist(that I would consider credible). Flew, when he allegedly changed his mind was sick, which affected his mental capacities, and as a result of that illness another man took advantage of him and wrote a book passing it off as his.

Your theism has EVERYTHING to do with evolution and the nature of the universe. If you are going to pawn "what is" off on a celestial being you better have damned good evidence for it. None of the people you mentioned as sources are credible by any stretch.

Now, before you even get to ANY GOD claim whatever attributes you think a god have, here is where all god claims start.

"There is something out there that is invisible and non material that thinks like a human"

Human brains have a structure and material. If something is non material, then it has no material or structure. Thus it cannot be capable of human thought.

The reality is that WE as humans make these claims up, or fall for them, merely because they sound nice to us.

Read the God Delusion By Richard Dawkins and "The New Atheism" by Victor Stinger. They explain to a very good scientific degree why people fall for false beliefs.

 

 

"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
Though it's clear Ubuntu's convictions are not monotheistic. Instead he has something called the Kierkegaard system... 

Kierkegaard insisted that before the objective came the subjective - that in effect what was real and knowable for humans was by default, subjective. This isn't anything we've not considered before nor is it something experiments cannot be loaded to ignore. It's always seemed to me that the scientific method by its nature side stepped or recognised and accounted for bias and subjectivity. Raw data certainly does so.

Kierkegaard's religious premise is that humans are too close to the material.

It's only those desperate enough to look for excuses to 'think' beyond practical levels that would cling to such a canard that what is real and knowable is 'subjective'.

Instruments and test are not subjective if properly engineered. They don't fail in making simple binary yes/no objective determinations on what is real/not real.

What's more interesting to me is why those kinds of navel gazing really resonate with certain people.

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Humans start with the most

Humans start with the most indisputable objective fact - 'cogito ergo sum', I think therefore I am - and the next objective fact that we do have sensory input.

We then make the reasonable assumption that this input has some correlation with whatever lies beyond our own selves.

Correlation between our inputs and what we attempt to initiate ourselves (our 'actions' ) progressively builds our model of reality, which form the linkages between our subjective experience and objective, external reality. As redneF observed, any defects in our senses, in relaying to us an accurate picture of reality, are addressed by the continuing refinement of our instruments of observation and measurement, to the extend we can now observe our own minds in action.

Science is a major refinement of this process, extending rigorously the correlation process to many participating individuals, to massively reinforce the justifiable confidence in its conclusions.

Kierkegaard is entitled to his purely subjective opinions, but without participating in the process I just outlined, his ideas have no greater warrant to be taken seriously than the guy next door. That kind of premise is all a matter of subjective opinion, as is 99% of 'philosophy'.

Anyone, philosopher or not, who expresses their opinions on the nature of reality, who is not reasonably well-informed of what is currently going in Science, and the current broad assessments of the state of understanding in all relevant areas, can safely be ignored.

 

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:... any

BobSpence wrote:

... any defects in our senses, in relaying to us an accurate picture of reality, are addressed by the continuing refinement of our instruments of observation and measurement, to the extend we can now observe our own minds in action.

Whoa!

Nice one, Bob!

This line is worthy of applying a concept that Daniel Dennett teaches.

1- Every time you repeat something, you make another copy of it in your brain.

2- Every time you repeat something, you make another copy of it in your brain.

3- Every time you repeat something, you make another copy of it in your brain.

4- Every time you repeat something, you make another copy of it in your brain.

------------------------------

Quote:
... any defects in our senses, in relaying to us an accurate picture of reality, are addressed by the continuing refinement of our instruments of observation and measurement, to the extend we can now observe our own minds in action.

Quote:
... any defects in our senses, in relaying to us an accurate picture of reality, are addressed by the continuing refinement of our instruments of observation and measurement, to the extend we can now observe our own minds in action.

Quote:
... any defects in our senses, in relaying to us an accurate picture of reality, are addressed by the continuing refinement of our instruments of observation and measurement, to the extend we can now observe our own minds in action.

Quote:
... any defects in our senses, in relaying to us an accurate picture of reality, are addressed by the continuing refinement of our instruments of observation and measurement, to the extend we can now observe our own minds in action.

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:Since there

BobSpence wrote:

Since there IS, pretty much by definition, no way to know anything about what lies beyond the scope of any kind of objective, checkable evidence, all your speculations about anything in such a context are utterly pointless, at least as it relates to any kind of truth about ultimate reality.

All you are doing is wrestling with your own subjective feelings and ideas.

So you are being utterly irrational, unless you concede you are doing it to maximize your personal mental comfort levels.

You claim to have a lot of knowledge about the contents of my mind....

And based on what you've said about your commitments to naturalism, you preclude any possibilities. You are unapolegtic about that...

BobSpence wrote:

You also have abandoned ethics and morality, in your refusing to acknowledge the "problem of evil".

You are being totally close-minded about all this, in refusing to acknowledge these plain FACTS.

In your refusal to acknowledge the possibility that you have got this whole thing totally wrong.

I was willing to entertain the possibility that I was wrong about atheism... you're not willing to do that...

And you think that I'm somehow committed to some sort of moral relativity is a bit presumptuous on your part... that sounds more closed-minded on your part...

BobSpence wrote:

When you start throwing around such accusations within the context where there is such a fundamental disagreement about how we can 'know', about what categories of discourse can lead to knowledge of any sort, you also miss the point. 

Am I being close-minded in rejecting the point-of-view of someone who so blatantly rejects the most fundamental basis for 'knowing'?

But you seemingly admitted that you are not even willing to consider something that doesn't fit into your worldview.

BobSpence wrote:

Would I be close-minded in refusing to accept a totally incoherent set pf ideas, which is damn close to describing what you are putting forth?

You are close-minded in refusing to acknowledge that the supernatural 'possibilities' extend to vastly more options than some new variation on the 'God' concept that still has some connection with the religious ideas. By the title of your post, you are restricting the possibilities you are entertaining to such a context. Otherwise, using the word 'conversion' makes no sense.

If you are just wanting to 'open' your mind to considering 'supernatural' options, you really are opening your mind so far that your brain has fallen out,

Supernatural is not just a label for the unknown, it is a label for the unknowable.

I laughed at Pascal because of the totally irrational and illogical ideas displayed by a famous 'philosopher'. Up to that point I had given him the 'benefit of the doubt' that the Wager was just a hiccup in a generally coherent set of ideas. 

Your idea of 'Philosophy' reduces the word to referring to little more than something like 'discourse', or 'study'.

You are further illustrating my point... It is necessarily incoherent because is lacks meaning, rather it could be that you lack the ability to understand it. But even so, you unapologetic refusal to consider such ideas leads me to believe that the problem has more to do with your ability (perhaps your refusal to) understand anything that doesn't fit into your assumptions about the world...

And your self-reorganization of philosophy and the relationships of science in relationships seems to suggest that the constructs are why your are reject philosophy. But this is not a problem of philosophy, rather a problem with your self-made constructs...

When you say that your lost respect for my intelligence, you've lead me to believe that you don't measure intelligence based on one's ability to reason. Rather you've lead me to believe that you measure intelligence by how much one sounds like you....

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:That's what I

redneF wrote:
That's what I thought, and why I asked you what was missing in your life.

You make a lot of assumptions about what I believe... one does not have to consider retribution...merely reward.

redneF wrote:

Between 2 or more people. They both don't lose, but can gain.

zero-sum is that neither side can gain the upper hand...

redneF wrote:

In your application what your are saying is 'you win some, you lose some', which is not a zero sum game.

I was talking about in the context of evidence-based reasoning...

redneF wrote:

I've done better, I've given you the correct definition.

And I used it correctly... so what is your point?

redneF wrote:

That makes no sense. We used technology to study the stars, but have never actually gotten any closer to them till we got into space, and then got marginally closer.

You still have to explain what the 'problem' with 'evidence-based reasoning' is, and why you believe 'faith-based reasoning' is something that needs to be resorted to.

In relationship to arguments for and and against god.... I said nothing about "faith-based reasoning", rather pragmatism based on what is wise and unwise.

redneF wrote:

So, I'll ask again, what's missing in your life that makes you anxious about knowing if there is a supernatural or not?

A loaded question... it assumes that something is missing, as if all who believes in a god are missing something...

redneF wrote:

If god exists, then (b)...

You're getting made at a self-made requirement you gave to god... that's the problem...

redneF wrote:

Not true. I have my own mind, and that I can make up my own mind about what is 'just'.

Punishing the son for the sins of the father is not just, not even according to the theist's worldview, since evil exists because of the 'father', and who is the very first 'father'?

Any guesses?

Why would the 'creator' of everything good and bad be exempt from 'justice'? Ohhhhh, because there isn't a 'society' of gods that he lives amongst? Wouldn't that be convenient for him?

The problem is, it is 'logically' possible in some world where 'creation' was a collaborative effort among a pantheon of gods. Now, in this possible world, where would the 'ultimate' law be derived from????

I imagine there would be no moratorium of justice in heaven, like there is on earth, and therefore no 'evil' people running around causing suffering to others for their own gain. I would be totally justified in having a grievance for god being able to be as 'just' while we are on earth, but not exercising that power to mitigate suffering.

He is actually an accomplice to anyone who commits 'evil'.

Sorry, the whole concept of a loving and just god is simply untenable but by a masochist.

You assume a lot about what I think about a god... where did I say anything about the particular brand of theism that I was committed to? Insofar as I can tell, this entire thing is a construct about what you think a god should be like and then you're getting angry at the construct....

redneF wrote:

I don't think you understand what an appeal to novelty is, either.

No one here has argued that anything is more accurate or even more probable simply because it's a newer argument.

Appeal to novelty says newer is better... the contrast is appeal to tradition... BobSpence1 was writing things off because they were medieval constructs...

redneF wrote:

No. The terms are not interchangeable.

No they are not interchangable. Science is subset of a broader field... A bluejay is a bird but no tall birds are bluejay.

redneF wrote:

A philosophical naturalist holds that particles and energy is all that exists.  Science is based on methodological naturalism in that it only tests what is testable. It has no comment to make on the supernatural since the ones who claim the supernatural exists have nothing but their hopes that there are things outside of the natural world.

Methodological naturalism is concerned about the epistemic approach concerning natural phenomenon, not about claims about what exists. In that case, it says nothing what exists in nature or otherwise. Science uses the scientific method, and that what methodological naturalism is concerned, but science is not concerned about methodological naturalism.

redneF wrote:

The onus is on the one making the positive claim that a supernatural exists, and the only way they can do that is demonstrate the laws of physics can/have been violated. The Vatican would love just 1 example of the laws of physics being violated, but they've only managed to argue from ignorance, in order to fallaciously inflate the odds of probability, which is dishonest and a fallacy.

IOW, you have not found anything new, except a renewed hope that there is a supernatural, an after life, and your fear that there might be a wrathful god that could punish you for eternity, otherwise, you'd be an agnostic atheist.

What does the Vatican's search for violations natural laws have to do anything... largely, this is a red herring...

It is the lack of good evidence that made me agnostic... and what force me to look at secondary methods of justification.. I don't think we disagree on this.


 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Kierkegaard insisted that before the objective came the subjective - that in effect what was real and knowable for humans was by default, subjective. This isn't anything we've not considered before nor is it something experiments cannot be loaded to ignore. It's always seemed to me that the scientific method by its nature side stepped or recognised and accounted for bias and subjectivity. Raw data certainly does so.

Kierkegaard's religious premise is that humans are too close to the material. Mmmm. Anyway, as a fan of Schopenhauer he exhibits subtle but clear signs of the east - his religious positions feel Buddhist to me. Kierkegaard also connects ethics directly to religion and I decry this position. There's no empirical evidence that suggests such a connection. Secular and religious people are equally capable of displaying ethical human behaviours.  

I was talking about Keirkegaard's existentialism, not necessarily everything that Keirkegaard said. Keirkekgaard was not no much concerned with propositional truth. He was basically like, "so you have the facts. Now what?" Facts in and of themselves do not compel anyone to live any differently. His challenge was to live one's life to the fullest that one can based on what one believes -- a sort of authenticity that isn't connected to propositions. Pascal's thoughts resonate with this, as he was reading the popular thesis coming from Kant and grappling with the divorce between propositional truth and the implications it had on one's life. Keirkegaard and Pascal I think were deeply introspective in this regard...

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:And you

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

And you think that I'm somehow committed to some sort of moral relativity is a bit presumptuous on your part... that sounds more closed-minded on your part...

 

First you ask me what I could have done to save one child (after the fact) who lived almost 3000 miles from me.  Then you say it is okay that the great invisible friend who is supposed to be all powerful, all knowing and all compassionate to ignore said child - and all the millions of other children who suffer horribly every day.

I am not omni anything, I can change my little corner of the world a little bit.  The mythical God/s/dess could fix it all with one snap of the fingers.

How is your position not moral relativity?

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:BobSpence

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

Since there IS, pretty much by definition, no way to know anything about what lies beyond the scope of any kind of objective, checkable evidence, all your speculations about anything in such a context are utterly pointless, at least as it relates to any kind of truth about ultimate reality.

All you are doing is wrestling with your own subjective feelings and ideas.

So you are being utterly irrational, unless you concede you are doing it to maximize your personal mental comfort levels.

You claim to have a lot of knowledge about the contents of my mind....

Absolutely NOT. I said nothing there about the actual contents of those 'feelings and ideas'. Are saying your mind does not contain 'feelings and ideas'?

You still display the persistent reading comprehension problems I recall from our previous encounters.

Quote:

And based on what you've said about your commitments to naturalism, you preclude any possibilities. You are unapolegtic about that...\

My commitment is to whatever is the clearest path to truth, not to any '-ism''.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

You also have abandoned ethics and morality, in your refusing to acknowledge the "problem of evil".

You are being totally close-minded about all this, in refusing to acknowledge these plain FACTS.

In your refusal to acknowledge the possibility that you have got this whole thing totally wrong.

I was willing to entertain the possibility that I was wrong about atheism... you're not willing to do that...

No. You were willing to re-entertain the possibility that there might actually be a God. 

I would be willing to entertain the possibility I am wrong about anything, if someone could show the concept was coherent, and they had some sound arguments based on checkable evidence. 'God' is NOT a coherent concept - the more I hear about it, from both sides, the less I can honestly take it seriously. It is simply wildly incompatible with everything else I have found to make sense about reality. 

Your problem you are reading too much philosophy and not enough science.

Quote:

And you think that I'm somehow committed to some sort of moral relativity is a bit presumptuous on your part... that sounds more closed-minded on your part...

BobSpence wrote:

When you start throwing around such accusations within the context where there is such a fundamental disagreement about how we can 'know', about what categories of discourse can lead to knowledge of any sort, you also miss the point. 

Am I being close-minded in rejecting the point-of-view of someone who so blatantly rejects the most fundamental basis for 'knowing'?

But you seemingly admitted that you are not even willing to consider something that doesn't fit into your worldview.

More incomprehension on your part.

That is not my criterion. It has to make some sort of sense in itself, first, before I can begin to consider it. 'God' concepts just don't make sense once you stand back far enough to not get caught in their appeal to our more primitive instincts and intuitions, and compare them against the alternative approaches to 'explain' reality.

If a concept passes those basic tests, then It has to mesh with my current conceptual model of reality ( subtly distinct from ny 'world-view' ). Unless it has overwhelming greater explanatory power than my current model, then I drop it.

You are the one making mistaken assumptions about how I think about these issues.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

Would I be close-minded in refusing to accept a totally incoherent set pf ideas, which is damn close to describing what you are putting forth?

You are close-minded in refusing to acknowledge that the supernatural 'possibilities' extend to vastly more options than some new variation on the 'God' concept that still has some connection with the religious ideas. By the title of your post, you are restricting the possibilities you are entertaining to such a context. Otherwise, using the word 'conversion' makes no sense.

If you are just wanting to 'open' your mind to considering 'supernatural' options, you really are opening your mind so far that your brain has fallen out,

Supernatural is not just a label for the unknown, it is a label for the unknowable.

I laughed at Pascal because of the totally irrational and illogical ideas displayed by a famous 'philosopher'. Up to that point I had given him the 'benefit of the doubt' that the Wager was just a hiccup in a generally coherent set of ideas. 

Your idea of 'Philosophy' reduces the word to referring to little more than something like 'discourse', or 'study'.

You are further illustrating my point... It is necessarily incoherent because is lacks meaning, rather it could be that you lack the ability to understand it. But even so, you unapologetic refusal to consider such ideas leads me to believe that the problem has more to do with your ability (perhaps your refusal to) understand anything that doesn't fit into your assumptions about the world...

Wrong, of course, about my approach (see above).

There is always the possibility that any given set of ideas appears incoherent to me because I don't understand them.

But when I have access to another set of ideas that covers the same intellectual territory, and more, and does make sense, has more backup, evidence, etc, and goes deeper than what is claimed for the other set, I have no issue with tossing the inferior set.

I continue to seek more knowledge, and modify my world-view whenever a sufficiently convincing new understanding is presented.

Quote:

And your self-reorganization of philosophy and the relationships of science in relationships seems to suggest that the constructs are why your are reject philosophy. But this is not a problem of philosophy, rather a problem with your self-made constructs...

When you say that your lost respect for my intelligence, you've lead me to believe that you don't measure intelligence based on one's ability to reason. Rather you've lead me to believe that you measure intelligence by how much one sounds like you....

I make no apologies for making a personal interpretation of the current relationship between Philosophy and Science, it is so confused in reality, having changed enormously as Science has made ever greater inroads into realms of thought once assumed to be the exclusive domain of Philosophy.

I also do not reject Philosophers in an indiscriminate manner. I have recently added two to my accepted list, one current, one no longer with us. Based not on whether their views coincide with mine, but on the insight and understanding and approach to things I sense from their work. Damn, I can't recall the contemporary one ATM, but you will know the other - Wittgenstein.

To expand my horizons, I value those views which don't simply match mine. I do have to bypass those whose world-view is utterly at odds with mine, simply because I need to be able to connect on some issues, to be able to establish some mutual understanding, in order to appraise the issues on which we differ, and see if what they say triggers any 'Aha!' moments in me. Which is my reaction to a presentation of a different way of looking at some issue, which I had not previously considered, or been aware of, but which works for me when I try it.

No, WhenI reject philosophy, it is based on its incoherence and shallowness and lack of compatibility with modern knowledge as established by Scientific study.

I judge someone's intelligence based on their demonstrated ability to reason coherently, understand new concepts, even if they don't actually agree with them, and so on.

You continue, as here, to ignore my detailed explanations of my thought processes, and replace them with simplistic stereotypes. More evidence against your abilities or willingness to try to understand other views than your own.

There are Theists who I have much more respect for than I have for someone with your stance, because when I interact with them, I can see that they grasp what I am saying, even when they find it not consistent with some of their fundamental assumptions, which they are capable of conveying to me, so we can continue to dig into the issues with some measure of mutual understanding. This has applied to disagreements over all kinds of issues. Some people simply reject what I say out of hand - typical Theist - others I can see they see something in what I say, and appear to actively give it some thought. I have had that recently with a more thoughtful Theist.

So again, your assumptions about my thought processes, as expressed by you, seem far more presumptive and specific than anything I have assumed about yours, and are simply wrong.

I make a point to try and avoid making too specific assumptions about what others are thinking, beyond what is contained in their responses, precisely because it can make me foolish in their eyes, as your assumptions here about my thought processes do wrt you. You are effectively confirming my assessment as you attempt to deny it, by the very manner of your response.

It really does seem that our discourse consists mostly in talking past each other, our positions being so incompatible. 

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


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:Absolutely


BobSpence wrote:

Absolutely NOT. I said nothing there about the actual contents of those 'feelings and ideas'. Are saying your mind does not contain 'feelings and ideas'?

You still display the persistent reading comprehension problems I recall from our previous encounters.

Of course my mind contains feelings and ideas, but at the same time you say I'm wrestling with my subjective feelings.... how do you know that I am doing such? It seems you assumed as much.

BobSpence wrote:

My commitment is to whatever is the clearest path to truth, not to any '-ism''.

What you described could be called an an "-ism", but that's not the point... I won' t pursue that.

BobSpence wrote:

No. You were willing to re-entertain the possibility that there might actually be a God. 

re-entertaining the possibility and changing implies that I am reconsidering my atheism....

BobSpence wrote:

I would be willing to entertain the possibility I am wrong about anything, if someone could show the concept was coherent, and they had some sound arguments based on checkable evidence. 'God' is NOT a coherent concept - the more I hear about it, from both sides, the less I can honestly take it seriously. It is simply wildly incompatible with everything else I have found to make sense about reality. 

Your problem you are reading too much philosophy and not enough science.

You keep saying so long as it is coherent... Yet at the same time you only accept that which fits into what you deem to be a coherent system. The problem with this is, as I have said, the system may be coherent, but not within your self-imposed limited scope. Insofar as I can tell, this amounts to something being coherent so long as you deem it so.

BobSpence wrote:

When you start throwing around such accusations within the context where there is such a fundamental disagreement about how we can 'know', about what categories of discourse can lead to knowledge of any sort, you also miss the point. 

Am I being close-minded in rejecting the point-of-view of someone who so blatantly rejects the most fundamental basis for 'knowing'?

Who said that I rejected anything about what you use to know> I don't oppose science -- not in the least bit. But at the same time, I am willing to accept that science is limited in its scope too, and to use it outside that scope is a misuse of science. If one limits himself to science only, then by virtue of this limitation he or she cannot see anything beyond that scope -- all else is meaningless. Insofar as I can tell, that's why you see conceptions of 'god' as incoherent. Any attempt to explain it to you may as well be gibberish...and it seems you are unwilling to change your basic assumptions about knowledge too... given that, I think you are closed-minded.

BobSpence wrote:

That is not my criterion. It has to make some sort of sense in itself, first, before I can begin to consider it. 'God' concepts just don't make sense once you stand back far enough to not get caught in their appeal to our more primitive instincts and intuitions, and compare them against the alternative approaches to 'explain' reality.

If a concept passes those basic tests, then It has to mesh with my current conceptual model of reality ( subtly distinct from ny 'world-view' ). Unless it has overwhelming greater explanatory power than my current model, then I drop it.

You are the one making mistaken assumptions about how I think about these issues.

On one hand, you only only embrace embrace what you can understand through science, and on the other, you deem something that is not scientific as incoherent. This is not a problem with science though...

BobSpence wrote:

If you are just wanting to 'open' your mind to considering 'supernatural' options, you really are opening your mind so far that your brain has fallen out,

Supernatural is not just a label for the unknown, it is a label for the unknowable.

This statement illustrates the points I made above.... Your mind is closed...already made up on the matter. It does not matter what I or anyone else has to say... even if the 'god' were coherent, you would have nothing to do with it.

BobSpence wrote:

I laughed at Pascal because of the totally irrational and illogical ideas displayed by a famous 'philosopher'. Up to that point I had given him the 'benefit of the doubt' that the Wager was just a hiccup in a generally coherent set of ideas. 

You still have not told me anything about the content of what Pascal wrote that you found laughable.

BobSpence wrote:

There is always the possibility that any given set of ideas appears incoherent to me because I don't understand them.

But when I have access to another set of ideas that covers the same intellectual territory, and more, and does make sense, has more backup, evidence, etc, and goes deeper than what is claimed for the other set, I have no issue with tossing the inferior set.

If you don't understand something, how can you possibly judge it as inferior or superior to anything else? That is a judgement from ignorance.

BobSpence wrote:

I make no apologies for making a personal interpretation of the current relationship between Philosophy and Science, it is so confused in reality, having changed enormously as Science has made ever greater inroads into realms of thought once assumed to be the exclusive domain of Philosophy.

I also do not reject Philosophers in an indiscriminate manner. I have recently added two to my accepted list, one current, one no longer with us. Based not on whether their views coincide with mine, but on the insight and understanding and approach to things I sense from their work. Damn, I can't recall the contemporary one ATM, but you will know the other - Wittgenstein.

To expand my horizons, I value those views which don't simply match mine. I do have to bypass those whose world-view is utterly at odds with mine, simply because I need to be able to connect on some issues, to be able to establish some mutual understanding, in order to appraise the issues on which we differ, and see if what they say triggers any 'Aha!' moments in me. Which is my reaction to a presentation of a different way of looking at some issue, which I had not previously considered, or been aware of, but which works for me when I try it.

No, WhenI reject philosophy, it is based on its incoherence and shallowness and lack of compatibility with modern knowledge as established by Scientific study.

I read the world-views that are utterly ad odds at mien and those that are consistent with mine. I like the challenge of that other worldviews offer. And just because something is opposed to me does not eman that everything that such a views have to so are not without merit. It could be that I failed to consider something or something that I have previously considered needs refinement or more nuancing.

I do not see science as something that as something that competes with philosophy. The study if Philosophy is the second-order discipline that defines the operating parameters for given systems -- including science. There's a philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of business, philosophy of history, philosophy of ethics (called meta-ethics)... there is the philosophy of knowledge (epistemology) and philosophy of being (ontology), political philosophies... The first-order discipline is the application of these philosophy, such as policy making, the scientific method, deducing axioms etc. I could go on. People often reject such things because they are not "practical" or something like that, but such rejection in and of itself is a second order judgement! That like using your right arm to chop of your left arm because your left arm is indeed an arm...

BobSpence wrote:

I judge someone's intelligence based on their demonstrated ability to reason coherently, understand new concepts, even if they don't actually agree with them, and so on.

You continue, as here, to ignore my detailed explanations of my thought processes, and replace them with simplistic stereotypes. More evidence against your abilities or willingness to try to understand other views than your own.

I don't continue to ignore them... I challenge them. But because I don't agree with you, you seem to judge my intelligence. No sweat off my back though.

BobSpence wrote:

So again, your assumptions about my thought processes, as expressed by you, seem far more presumptive and specific than anything I have assumed about yours, and are simply wrong.

I make a point to try and avoid making too specific assumptions about what others are thinking, beyond what is contained in their responses, precisely because it can make me foolish in their eyes, as your assumptions here about my thought processes do wrt you. You are effectively confirming my assessment as you attempt to deny it, by the very manner of your response.

It really does seem that our discourse consists mostly in talking past each other, our positions being so incompatible. 

I've criticized you for being assumptive about me, and vice versa. You say I confirm your position by my posts, and vice versa. It does seem that we are at an impasse.

We disagreed vehemently even when I was an atheist. Seems that I am in that category that you prefer to "bypass" because you cannot connect with them..

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:First you ask me

cj wrote:

First you ask me what I could have done to save one child (after the fact) who lived almost 3000 miles from me.  Then you say it is okay that the great invisible friend who is supposed to be all powerful, all knowing and all compassionate to ignore said child - and all the millions of other children who suffer horribly every day.

There is nothing I can do in the moment unless I am there. It what I can do in the grander scheme of things that I think can help situations like this...if nothing else, prevent them from happening in the first place by trying to make the world a better place.

cj wrote:

I am not omni anything, I can change my little corner of the world a little bit.  The mythical God/s/dess could fix it all with one snap of the fingers.

How is your position not moral relativity?

But even so, I still have no reason to believe that some who able to do something is obligated to actually do something...

Bill Gates is able to give one million dollars to a poverty stricken family and probably not miss it, but just because he can does not mean he is obligated to do so.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:BobSpence

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
 

BobSpence wrote:

Absolutely NOT. I said nothing there about the actual contents of those 'feelings and ideas'. Are saying your mind does not contain 'feelings and ideas'?

You still display the persistent reading comprehension problems I recall from our previous encounters.

Of course my mind contains feelings and ideas, but at the same time you say I'm wrestling with my subjective feelings.... how do you know that I am doing such? It seems you assumed as much.

I was merely describing what you are telling us here about your 'de-de-conversion', in a slightly more colorful way. Note remotely assuming anything of any more detail about the contents of your mind.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

My commitment is to whatever is the clearest path to truth, not to any '-ism''.

What you described could be called an an "-ism", but that's not the point... I won' t pursue that.

BobSpence wrote:

No. You were willing to re-entertain the possibility that there might actually be a God.

re-entertaining the possibility and changing implies that I am reconsidering my atheism....

You said you were

"willing to entertain the possibility that I was wrong about atheism".

That is not the same thing as "reconsidering my atheism". It is also a poorly phrased expression, but maybe I'm being a bit too pedantic here.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

I would be willing to entertain the possibility I am wrong about anything, if someone could show the concept was coherent, and they had some sound arguments based on checkable evidence. 'God' is NOT a coherent concept - the more I hear about it, from both sides, the less I can honestly take it seriously. It is simply wildly incompatible with everything else I have found to make sense about reality.

Your problem you are reading too much philosophy and not enough science.

You keep saying so long as it is coherent... Yet at the same time you only accept that which fits into what you deem to be a coherent system. The problem with this is, as I have said, the system may be coherent, but not within your self-imposed limited scope. Insofar as I can tell, this amounts to something being coherent so long as you deem it so.

Yes, I am less tolerant of stuff which is poorly-thought through and misconceived, as I judge it, to the best of my abilities. No apologies.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

When you start throwing around such accusations within the context where there is such a fundamental disagreement about how we can 'know', about what categories of discourse can lead to knowledge of any sort, you also miss the point.

Am I being close-minded in rejecting the point-of-view of someone who so blatantly rejects the most fundamental basis for 'knowing'?

Who said that I rejected anything about what you use to know> I don't oppose science -- not in the least bit. But at the same time, I am willing to accept that science is limited in its scope too, and to use it outside that scope is a misuse of science. If one limits himself to science only, then by virtue of this limitation he or she cannot see anything beyond that scope -- all else is meaningless. Insofar as I can tell, that's why you see conceptions of 'god' as incoherent. Any attempt to explain it to you may as well be gibberish...and it seems you are unwilling to change your basic assumptions about knowledge too... given that, I think you are closed-minded.

You do reject stuff I base my knowledge on, by insisting that some form of what could be classified as 'knowledge' can be gained by what lies beyond science, which is essentially all the stuff which you imagine is 'beyond the natural', which is the only actual 'constraint' on science. Which means your idea of what 'knowing' can mean is crap. Conceptions of God are incoherent. Unless you reject all the 'omni' and 'infinite' attributes, then I might reconsider, but that would not 'map' to any claim of 'God' I am aware of. Please explain if I am wrong there.

Of course I am unwilling to embrace crazy ideas about 'knowledge'. That includes anything 'beyond science', which inherentlycannot be 'known'.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

That is not my criterion. It has to make some sort of sense in itself, first, before I can begin to consider it. 'God' concepts just don't make sense once you stand back far enough to not get caught in their appeal to our more primitive instincts and intuitions, and compare them against the alternative approaches to 'explain' reality.

If a concept passes those basic tests, then It has to mesh with my current conceptual model of reality ( subtly distinct from ny 'world-view' ). Unless it has overwhelming greater explanatory power than my current model, then I drop it.

You are the one making mistaken assumptions about how I think about these issues.

On one hand, you only only embrace embrace what you can understand through science, and on the other, you deem something that is not scientific as incoherent. This is not a problem with science though...

Of course that is 'not a problem with science'. I am being consistent there, your use of OTOH is not appropriate.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

If you are just wanting to 'open' your mind to considering 'supernatural' options, you really are opening your mind so far that your brain has fallen out,

Supernatural is not just a label for the unknown, it is a label for the unknowable.

This statement illustrates the points I made above.... Your mind is closed...already made up on the matter. It does not matter what I or anyone else has to say... even if the 'god' were coherent, you would have nothing to do with it.

There you go again with "Your mind is closed". You are making massive assumptions about how I arrived at my position. I have heard all the crap you present decades ago, and considered it more thoroughly and for longer than you seem to assume.

I have been thinking about this stuff, starting with a lot of philosophy, for 50 years or so. How long have you been thinking about it?

I am not going to claim that that extent of time automatically makes my position more justified, just that your assumptions about how little real thought I put into my position is based on ignorant assumptions about how I came to my current position.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

I laughed at Pascal because of the totally irrational and illogical ideas displayed by a famous 'philosopher'. Up to that point I had given him the 'benefit of the doubt' that the Wager was just a hiccup in a generally coherent set of ideas.

You still have not told me anything about the content of what Pascal wrote that you found laughable.

Pretty much everything - his whole position.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

There is always the possibility that any given set of ideas appears incoherent to me because I don't understand them.

But when I have access to another set of ideas that covers the same intellectual territory, and more, and does make sense, has more backup, evidence, etc, and goes deeper than what is claimed for the other set, I have no issue with tossing the inferior set.

If you don't understand something, how can you possibly judge it as inferior or superior to anything else? That is a judgement from ignorance.

I do not need to study the justifications Flat- or Hollow- Earthers use for their ideas to dismiss them.

I obviously read enough to make a judgement, I do typically understand the grounds of those other positions. It only requires me to identify at least one serious fallacy, or to identify that they are basing their views on something inherently invalid as a ground for knowledge claims, such as the supernatural, or purely internal mental experiences and/or intuitions, rather than objective evidence.

It is a judgement based on long experience. You are assuming I have no familiarity with the substance of such claims. I haven't encountered anything novel in such claims for a long time. If I did, I would investigate it.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

I make no apologies for making a personal interpretation of the current relationship between Philosophy and Science, it is so confused in reality, having changed enormously as Science has made ever greater inroads into realms of thought once assumed to be the exclusive domain of Philosophy.

I also do not reject Philosophers in an indiscriminate manner. I have recently added two to my accepted list, one current, one no longer with us. Based not on whether their views coincide with mine, but on the insight and understanding and approach to things I sense from their work. Damn, I can't recall the contemporary one ATM, but you will know the other - Wittgenstein.

To expand my horizons, I value those views which don't simply match mine. I do have to bypass those whose world-view is utterly at odds with mine, simply because I need to be able to connect on some issues, to be able to establish some mutual understanding, in order to appraise the issues on which we differ, and see if what they say triggers any 'Aha!' moments in me. Which is my reaction to a presentation of a different way of looking at some issue, which I had not previously considered, or been aware of, but which works for me when I try it.

No, WhenI reject philosophy, it is based on its incoherence and shallowness and lack of compatibility with modern knowledge as established by Scientific study.

I read the world-views that are utterly ad odds at mien and those that are consistent with mine. I like the challenge of that other worldviews offer. And just because something is opposed to me does not eman that everything that such a views have to so are not without merit. It could be that I failed to consider something or something that I have previously considered needs refinement or more nuancing.

If something is completely at odds, I have long realized I would be wasting my time. I have found that it is far more productive of my time to engage with those people who I can establish a minimal bridge of understanding with. Otherwise I agree with your general sentiments there.

Quote:

I do not see science as something that as something that competes with philosophy. The study if Philosophy is the second-order discipline that defines the operating parameters for given systems -- including science. There's a philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of business, philosophy of history, philosophy of ethics (called meta-ethics)... there is the philosophy of knowledge (epistemology) and philosophy of being (ontology), political philosophies... The first-order discipline is the application of these philosophy, such as policy making, the scientific method, deducing axioms etc. I could go on. People often reject such things because they are not "practical" or something like that, but such rejection in and of itself is a second order judgement! That like using your right arm to chop of your left arm because your left arm is indeed an arm...

I also do not see Philosophy as something that competes with Science. Just mostly irrelevant.

Some individuals who also happen to 'do' philosophy, such as Dennett, I find extremely productive of new insights. It is not really the 'philosophy', IMHO, it is the qualities of mind of those individuals.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

I judge someone's intelligence based on their demonstrated ability to reason coherently, understand new concepts, even if they don't actually agree with them, and so on.

You continue, as here, to ignore my detailed explanations of my thought processes, and replace them with simplistic stereotypes. More evidence against your abilities or willingness to try to understand other views than your own.

I don't continue to ignore them... I challenge them. But because I don't agree with you, you seem to judge my intelligence. No sweat off my back though.

Look, I may occasionally come across a bit too dismissive and insulting, but I do tend to get deeply frustrated and irritated at what comes across to me as deeply wrong-headed ideas about Truth and Knowledge.

I am very passionate about the honest 'search for truth, and i see any leaning toward theism or supernatural or 'woo' as fundamentally inconsistent with that, based on a lifetime of dealing with it. Sometimes that passion shows in language which may appear a little intemperate.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

So again, your assumptions about my thought processes, as expressed by you, seem far more presumptive and specific than anything I have assumed about yours, and are simply wrong.

I make a point to try and avoid making too specific assumptions about what others are thinking, beyond what is contained in their responses, precisely because it can make me foolish in their eyes, as your assumptions here about my thought processes do wrt you. You are effectively confirming my assessment as you attempt to deny it, by the very manner of your response.

It really does seem that our discourse consists mostly in talking past each other, our positions being so incompatible.

I've criticized you for being assumptive about me, and vice versa. You say I confirm your position by my posts, and vice versa. It does seem that we are at an impasse.

We disagreed vehemently even when I was an atheist. Seems that I am in that category that you prefer to "bypass" because you cannot connect with them..

Yep, because I see nothing in your views which adds any useful insight to my position. Which is not always the case with people holding different views to mine, as I have mentioned.

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


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:Absolutely

BobSpence wrote:

Absolutely NOT. I said nothing there about the actual contents of those 'feelings and ideas'. Are saying your mind does not contain 'feelings and ideas'?

You still display the persistent reading comprehension problems I recall from our previous encounters.

I was merely describing what you are telling us here about your 'de-de-conversion', in a slightly more colorful way. Note remotely assuming anything of any more detail about the contents of your mind.

You made an assumption about what I was going through...some sort of subjective emotive behavior... now you seem to be backpedaling on that.

BobSpence wrote:

That is not the same thing as "reconsidering my atheism". It is also a poorly phrased expression, but maybe I'm being a bit too pedantic here.

And I have a problem with comprehension...To "reconsider" is to "consider again"... and even in the context, it shouldn't have been that difficult to ascertain what I meant by that statement....

BobSpence wrote:

Yes, I am less tolerant of stuff which is poorly-thought through and misconceived, as I judge it, to the best of my abilities. No apologies.

So which is it.. your ambiguity is not helping... you're throwing around "poorly-thought through and misconceived", "incoherent", and "meaningless" as if they were all the same thing... which is it? If something is poorly-thought through and misconceived it is not necessarily meaningless... you were able to follow the though processes enough to deem it so. On the other hand, something that is meaningless does even get to the point of considering it...

BobSpence wrote:

You do reject stuff I base my knowledge on, by insisting that some form of what could be classified as 'knowledge' can be gained  by what lies beyond science, which is essentially all the stuff which you imagine is 'beyond the natural', which is the only actual 'constraint' on science. Which means your idea of what 'knowing' can mean is crap. Conceptions of God are incoherent. Unless you reject all the 'omni' and 'infinite' attributes, then I might reconsider, but that would not 'map' to any claim of 'God' I am aware of. Please explain if I am wrong there.

Of course I am unwilling to embrace crazy ideas about 'knowledge'. That includes anything 'beyond science', which inherently cannot be 'known'.

It can't be known or your refuse to know it because you are locked into that prevents you from knowing?  I think it is the latter based on what you have said...

I don't claim to have such knowledge of 'god'... no "omnis", no  "infinites"... none of that.

BobSpence wrote:

Of course that is 'not a problem with science'. I am being consistent there, your use of OTOH is not appropriate.

You deem something as incoherent because it is not explainable within the self-imposed limits of your worldview... that's were your problem is... As I've said before, science is not the exclusive domain of those who don't believe in things that are are beyond the scope of science... so the problem is not with science... it is the limitation of your worldview...

BobSpence wrote:

I have been thinking about this stuff, starting with a lot of philosophy, for 50 years or so. How long have you been thinking about it?

I am not going to claim that that extent of time automatically makes my position more justified, just that your assumptions about how little real thought I put into my position is based on ignorant assumptions about how I came to my current position.

If you must know, I'm just over 30. I started reading this stuff about 15 years ago.

BobSpence wrote:

Quote:

You still have not told me anything about the content of what Pascal wrote that you found laughable.

Pretty much everything - his whole position.

 

That's pretty vague... His "position" is multifaceted and included applications of probability theory -- something that he worked on and one of his largest contributions to mathematics.... I find this odd coming from someone who cites Bayes theorem as cornerstone of his world view.

BobSpence wrote:

I obviously read enough to make a judgement, I do typically understand the grounds of those other positions. It only requires me to identify at least one serious fallacy, or to identify that they are basing their views on something inherently invalid as a ground for knowledge claims, such as the supernatural, or purely internal mental experiences and/or intuitions, rather than objective evidence.

It is a judgement based on long experience. You are assuming I have no familiarity with the substance of such claims. I haven't encountered anything novel in such claims for a long time. If I did, I would investigate it.

I'm not assuming that you don't have familiarity...

BobSpence wrote:

I also do not see Philosophy as something that competes with Science. Just mostly irrelevant. 

Some individuals who also happen to 'do' philosophy, such as Dennett, I find extremely productive of new insights. It is not really the 'philosophy', IMHO, it is the qualities of mind of those individuals.

Dennett is a breath of fresh among the "New Atheists"... probably the most insightful and most well thought out of them...I think so because he does 'do' philosophy... he's not sloppy like Hitchens or Dawkins and he isn't fallacy laden like like Harris....

BobSpence wrote:

Look, I may occasionally come across a bit too dismissive and insulting, but I do tend to get deeply frustrated and irritated at what comes across to me as deeply wrong-headed ideas about Truth and Knowledge.

I am very passionate about the honest 'search for truth, and i see any leaning toward theism or supernatural or 'woo' as fundamentally inconsistent with that, based on a lifetime of dealing with it. Sometimes that passion shows in language which may appear a little intemperate.

I don't discredit your passionate search for truth. For one who claims to want to pursue truth and does so passionately is IMHO is probably more content and complete as a person even if he is wrong.

I may be wrong... And changing my mind about a god a least shows that I'm willing to change...

BobSpence wrote:

Yep, because I see nothing in your views which adds any useful insight to my position. Which is not always the case with people holding different views to mine, as I have mentioned.

I don't suppose I'm sorry for not offering anything insightful.... What you receive as insight into your life I have no control over. But at the same time, the feeling is mutual...

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 ubuntuAnyone

 

 

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

Absolutely NOT. I said nothing there about the actual contents of those 'feelings and ideas'. Are saying your mind does not contain 'feelings and ideas'?

You still display the persistent reading comprehension problems I recall from our previous encounters.

I was merely describing what you are telling us here about your 'de-de-conversion', in a slightly more colorful way. Note remotely assuming anything of any more detail about the contents of your mind.

You made an assumption about what I was going through...some sort of subjective emotive behavior... now you seem to be backpedaling on that.

And you made an assumption about what I was referring to.

No 'back-pedalling'.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

That is not the same thing as "reconsidering my atheism". It is also a poorly phrased expression, but maybe I'm being a bit too pedantic here.

And I have a problem with comprehension...To "reconsider" is to "consider again"... and even in the context, it shouldn't have been that difficult to ascertain what I meant by that statement....

Oh I had a fair idea what you meant, jaus making fun of your illiteracy.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

Yes, I am less tolerant of stuff which is poorly-thought through and misconceived, as I judge it, to the best of my abilities. No apologies.

So which is it.. your ambiguity is not helping... you're throwing around "poorly-thought through and misconceived", "incoherent", and "meaningless" as if they were all the same thing... which is it? If something is poorly-thought through and misconceived it is not necessarily meaningless... you were able to follow the though processes enough to deem it so. On the other hand, something that is meaningless does even get to the point of considering it...

They are all applicable in varying degrees to various parts of the text.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

You do reject stuff I base my knowledge on, by insisting that some form of what could be classified as 'knowledge' can be gained  by what lies beyond science, which is essentially all the stuff which you imagine is 'beyond the natural', which is the only actual 'constraint' on science. Which means your idea of what 'knowing' can mean is crap. Conceptions of God are incoherent. Unless you reject all the 'omni' and 'infinite' attributes, then I might reconsider, but that would not 'map' to any claim of 'God' I am aware of. Please explain if I am wrong there.

Of course I am unwilling to embrace crazy ideas about 'knowledge'. That includes anything 'beyond science', which inherently cannot be 'known'.

It can't be known or your refuse to know it because you are locked into that prevents you from knowing?  I think it is the latter based on what you have said...

I don't claim to have such knowledge of 'god'... no "omnis", no  "infinites"... none of that.

Once you go totally beyond established 'laws' of science, and stuff we have evidence for, and embrace the unknown, anything goes, you only have speculation - which is fine, up to a point, just that you cannot justify calling it 'knowledge'.

But do you actually reject the omnis and infinites as 'possibilities'? If not, you are prepared to embrace the incoherent, if you do, you are not talking about a 'god' that anyone else would recognize as such, so 'de-de-converting' does not apply.

Of course I reject anything that defies logic and reason. Your ignorant ad-hominems about my being locked into an inability to 'know' is really getting tiresome.

Quote:
 

BobSpence wrote:

Of course that is 'not a problem with science'. I am being consistent there, your use of OTOH is not appropriate.

You deem something as incoherent because it is not explainable within the self-imposed limits of your worldview... that's were your problem is... As I've said before, science is not the exclusive domain of those who don't believe in things that are are beyond the scope of science... so the problem is not with science... it is the limitation of your worldview...

Yes, I impose a degree of discipline on my thought processes, otherwise I could conclude "black is white".

Your problem is the incoherence of your world-view, and sharing the theist view of science as not applying to stuff they want to believe;

Science is definitely about taking care to maintain coherent consistency with what we have already established. Anything pushing those limits needs very good evidence and solid arguments and evidence.

I simply believe that such basic rigour should apply to all claims of knowledge.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

I have been thinking about this stuff, starting with a lot of philosophy, for 50 years or so. How long have you been thinking about it?

I am not going to claim that that extent of time automatically makes my position more justified, just that your assumptions about how little real thought I put into my position is based on ignorant assumptions about how I came to my current position.

If you must know, I'm just over 30. I started reading this stuff about 15 years ago.

Ok, so you started at roughly the same age. Maybe you need to work through this infatuation with philosophy.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

Quote:

You still have not told me anything about the content of what Pascal wrote that you found laughable.

Pretty much everything - his whole position.

That's pretty vague... His "position" is multifaceted and included applications of probability theory -- something that he worked on and one of his largest contributions to mathematics.... I find this odd coming from someone who cites Bayes theorem as cornerstone of his world view.

OK, I was referring to everything he said about philosphy and religion. He struck me as being pretty much a Christian Apologetic, more than a philosopher. That should have been obvious.

That is what I laughed at, when I realized that fallacious thinking demonstrated in the Wager permeated pretty much all his ideas in that mode. 

Of course a person can be careful and rigorous in one area of thought and off with the fairies in another. Like Isaac Newton the Alchemist. Referring to those other interests and contributions of his in no way counters my impression of him as an Apologetic Christian.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

I obviously read enough to make a judgement, I do typically understand the grounds of those other positions. It only requires me to identify at least one serious fallacy, or to identify that they are basing their views on something inherently invalid as a ground for knowledge claims, such as the supernatural, or purely internal mental experiences and/or intuitions, rather than objective evidence.

It is a judgement based on long experience. You are assuming I have no familiarity with the substance of such claims. I haven't encountered anything novel in such claims for a long time. If I did, I would investigate it.

I'm not assuming that you don't have familiarity...

You did seem to be.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

I also do not see Philosophy as something that competes with Science. Just mostly irrelevant. 

Some individuals who also happen to 'do' philosophy, such as Dennett, I find extremely productive of new insights. It is not really the 'philosophy', IMHO, it is the qualities of mind of those individuals.

Dennett is a breath of fresh among the "New Atheists"... probably the most insightful and most well thought out of them...I think so because he does 'do' philosophy... he's not sloppy like Hitchens or Dawkins and he isn't fallacy laden like like Harris....

FYI, Sam Harris received a degree in philosophy from Stanford University...

And I tend to agree about Hitchens. Dawkins is less rigorous than Dennett, but I don't see any major errors in logic.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

Look, I may occasionally come across a bit too dismissive and insulting, but I do tend to get deeply frustrated and irritated at what comes across to me as deeply wrong-headed ideas about Truth and Knowledge.

I am very passionate about the honest 'search for truth, and i see any leaning toward theism or supernatural or 'woo' as fundamentally inconsistent with that, based on a lifetime of dealing with it. Sometimes that passion shows in language which may appear a little intemperate.

I don't discredit your passionate search for truth. For one who claims to want to pursue truth and does so passionately is IMHO is probably more content and complete as a person even if he is wrong.

I may be wrong... And changing my mind about a god a least shows that I'm willing to change...

I will concede that much, but taking the God concept seriously displays other deep flaws in your understanding. IMHO, obviously.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

Yep, because I see nothing in your views which adds any useful insight to my position. Which is not always the case with people holding different views to mine, as I have mentioned.

I don't suppose I'm sorry for not offering anything insightful.... What you receive as insight into your life I have no control over. But at the same time, the feeling is mutual...

Of course - I would expect nothing less.

 

 

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


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:cj

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

cj wrote:

First you ask me what I could have done to save one child (after the fact) who lived almost 3000 miles from me.  Then you say it is okay that the great invisible friend who is supposed to be all powerful, all knowing and all compassionate to ignore said child - and all the millions of other children who suffer horribly every day.

There is nothing I can do in the moment unless I am there. It what I can do in the grander scheme of things that I think can help situations like this...if nothing else, prevent them from happening in the first place by trying to make the world a better place.

 

We both would like the world to be a better place than it currently is.  Many people wish so.  It is the differences of approach and our different ideas of "better" that get us into arguments. 

 

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

cj wrote:

I am not omni anything, I can change my little corner of the world a little bit.  The mythical God/s/dess could fix it all with one snap of the fingers.

How is your position not moral relativity?

But even so, I still have no reason to believe that some who able to do something is obligated to actually do something...

Bill Gates is able to give one million dollars to a poverty stricken family and probably not miss it, but just because he can does not mean he is obligated to do so.

 

Bill Gates seems to think he has some obligation to do so.  Witness his various charities.  I personally wish he would spend more here in North America, but it is not my choice.

But Gates is not a god, even in lower case.  Back to Epicurus -

wiki wrote:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”[14]

 

Why call this being god/s/dess if they won't/can't be bothered to even attempt to make this world a better place?  Do you have some other option than malevolent, incompetent, or less than god?  Do you have some sort of indication that s/he/it/they are working on the problem?  If so, what?  And why the hell is it taking her/him/it/them so freaking long to accomplish anything?

Fuck -- "God, strike this old atheist dead if it will make the world a better place!"

 

 

 

 

Nada.

 

Edit: fixed quotes

Edit 2:  And it was such a good exit line.  Sigh.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:And you made

BobSpence wrote:

And you made an assumption about what I was referring to.

No 'back-pedalling'.

Or was it you who made an assumption about what I was going through... you made the accusation... not me...

BobSpence wrote:

Oh I had a fair idea what you meant, jaus making fun of your illiteracy.

If you want to play dumb, go ahead... You failed if you're "making fun" because what I said made sense....

BobSpence wrote:

They are all applicable in varying degrees to various parts of the text.

The ambiguity can result in massive equivocations... Insofar as I can tell, you've been doing that all along...

BobSpence wrote:

 

Once you go totally beyond established 'laws' of science, and stuff we have evidence for, and embrace the unknown, anything goes, you only have speculation - which is fine, up to a point, just that you cannot justify calling it 'knowledge'.

But do you actually reject the omnis and infinites as 'possibilities'? If not, you are prepared to embrace the incoherent, if you do, you are not talking about a 'god' that anyone else would recognize as such, so 'de-de-converting' does not apply.

Of course I reject anything that defies logic and reason. Your ignorant ad-hominems about my being locked into an inability to 'know' is really getting tiresome.

You fail to see the point... again. Comprehensibility is not necessarily the problem... your assumptions are... any anything that doesn't fit into those assumptions you give one or more of your ambiguous labels.

BobSpence wrote:

 

Ok, so you started at roughly the same age. Maybe you need to work through this infatuation with philosophy.

My "infatuation" with philosophy? You talk as if it is a problem... I don't see it as such. I originally had a huge distaste for it, but as I read more, it made me think more and gained an appreciation for it....

BobSpence wrote:

OK, I was referring to everything he said about philosphy and religion. He struck me as being pretty much a Christian Apologetic, more than a philosopher. That should have been obvious.

That is what I laughed at, when I realized that fallacious thinking demonstrated in the Wager permeated pretty much all his ideas in that mode. 

Pascal's writings had actually little to do with the Wager... That is what is most famous for. His writings actually sound more like a proto-existentialist in the line of Keierkegaard, Nitzche, and Sartre.

BobSpence wrote:

FYI, Sam Harris received a degree in philosophy from Stanford University...

That's what scares me about Harris... even in spite of having said degreees, he still makes a basic mistake.

BobSpence wrote:

And I tend to agree about Hitchens. Dawkins is less rigorous than Dennett, but I don't see any major errors in logic.

Dawkins lack in rigor is what I think is sloppy... and honestly why I haven't seen a lot of literature written in response to his hellfire and brimstone preaching take him seriously...

BobSpence wrote:

I will concede that much, but taking the God concept seriously displays other deep flaws in your understanding. IMHO, obviously.

"Obviously", I feel quite different about the matter than you do...

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:We both would like

 

cj wrote:

We both would like the world to be a better place than it currently is.  Many people wish so.  It is the differences of approach and our different ideas of "better" that get us into arguments. 

I think in most every case, save some extreme positions, there is enough common ground to unite around and work together....

cj wrote:

Bill Gates seems to think he has some obligation to do so.  Witness his various charities.  I personally wish he would spend more here in North America, but it is not my choice.

 

Your personal wish is the a god would have stopped the little girl from being raped... and therein lies the issue I'm getting at. Where and if a being chooses to act even if he or she is able is that being's prerogative... Who am I to tell them what to do or how to do it? And getting mad at such being because they don't act according to how I should act is folly....

 

cj wrote:

But Gates is not a god, even in lower case.  Back to Epicurus -

Why call this being god/s/dess if they won't/can't be bothered to even attempt to make this world a better place?  Do you have some other option than malevolent, incompetent, or less than god?  Do you have some sort of indication that s/he/it/they are working on the problem?  If so, what?  And why the hell is it taking her/him/it/them so freaking long to accomplish anything?

Fuck -- "God, strike this old atheist dead if it will make the world a better place!"

Epicurus and everyone else that has asked that question has the same basic problem I described above...

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Define this god, ubuntu

 

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Epicurus and everyone else that has asked that question has the same basic problem I described above...

 

Do you have a specific idea of what you mean by god, or is your philosophical position that there needs to be something? 

Additionally, while Dawkins was illiterate on philosophy when he wrote Delusion I don't believe he was wrong to vehemently question the moral inconsistency of the biblical god concept. By any application of universal empathy the bible god fails. The fact it was a secular author criticizing this fabrication says a good deal. Few christian scholars have fiercely questioned the moral flaws at the heart of the bible god concept. Too few consider the core immorality of concession by threat. Most corral their questions to one side and retain their personal devotion to a being whose described nature is clearly corrupt. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1711
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Option malevolent

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

 

Your personal wish is the a god would have stopped the little girl from being raped... and therein lies the issue I'm getting at. Where and if a being chooses to act even if he or she is able is that being's prerogative... Who am I to tell them what to do or how to do it? And getting mad at such being because they don't act according to how I should act is folly....

 

Epicurus and everyone else that has asked that question has the same basic problem I described above...

There is not a problem. He is just malevolent then. So we got a prick for a sky daddy. That is at least good established. I would rather know the truth that do some fucking pretense of he is all loving. So it just boils down to it is as if he doesn't exists because if he has no compassion for a child then why even bother concerning yourself with something invisible. Neglected and abused children do learn to fend for themselves.

But for entertainment purposes is your God entirely unknowable? Is that your problem, you have no description for god?

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
 It's not a matter of

 It's not a matter of obligation to help. Helping people when you have the ability shows that you have a friendly, kind attitude. It's a display of good-will. Malevolence is an expression of ill-will. 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1711
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: It's not a

Gauche wrote:

 It's not a matter of obligation to help. Helping people when you have the ability shows that you have a friendly, kind attitude. It's a display of good-will. Malevolence is an expression of ill-will. 

In terms of an all-powerful, all-knowing being, who could save a child with zero effort, yet does nothing, I would call that neglectful, indifferent malevolence. The all-loving characteristic certainly does not apply.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:Do

Atheistextremist wrote:

Do you have a specific idea of what you mean by god, or is your philosophical position that there needs to be something? 

Conceptions of of 'god' are not necessary to illustrate the problem I outlined concerning the "Problem of Evil". The question I am asking has to do with the the sorts of unnecessary obligations many unduly heap upon others then get mad when these others don't act accordingly....

Atheistextremist wrote:

Additionally, while Dawkins was illiterate on philosophy when he wrote Delusion I don't believe he was wrong to vehemently question the moral inconsistency of the biblical god concept. By any application of universal empathy the bible god fails. The fact it was a secular author criticizing this fabrication says a good deal. Few christian scholars have fiercely questioned the moral flaws at the heart of the bible god concept. Too few consider the core immorality of concession by threat. Most corral their questions to one side and retain their personal devotion to a being whose described nature is clearly corrupt. 

I'm not in a position to adequately defend Christian theism nor is it my desire to, but even so I think Dawkins treatment of the Bible is a more than ameturish. I don't have to be a Bible scholar to point that out...this was in the same class of the larger problem that critics illustrated in that he was sloppy and lacked rigor.

In any case, my beef isn't with a particular construct of god. The Christian version is one among many others.

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:There is

ex-minister wrote:

There is not a problem. He is just malevolent then. So we got a prick for a sky daddy. That is at least good established. I would rather know the truth that do some fucking pretense of he is all loving. So it just boils down to it is as if he doesn't exists because if he has no compassion for a child then why even bother concerning yourself with something invisible.

Do rich people having money and not giving it away to solve the problem of poverty make them "pricks"?

The ability to act and the choosing not to do so does not necessarily make one malevolent....

ex-minister wrote:

Neglected and abused children do learn to fend for themselves.

And neglected and abused children do learn to fend for themselves....

And people who are able to do something about it don't...all the while many such people theist and atheist alike get mad at a god because they think that a god should help them.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi Ubuntu

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Do you have a specific idea of what you mean by god, or is your philosophical position that there needs to be something? 

Conceptions of of 'god' are not necessary to illustrate the problem I outlined concerning the "Problem of Evil". The question I am asking has to do with the the sorts of unnecessary obligations many unduly heap upon others then get mad when these others don't act accordingly....

Atheistextremist wrote:

Additionally, while Dawkins was illiterate on philosophy when he wrote Delusion I don't believe he was wrong to vehemently question the moral inconsistency of the biblical god concept. By any application of universal empathy the bible god fails. The fact it was a secular author criticizing this fabrication says a good deal. Few christian scholars have fiercely questioned the moral flaws at the heart of the bible god concept. Too few consider the core immorality of concession by threat. Most corral their questions to one side and retain their personal devotion to a being whose described nature is clearly corrupt. 

I'm not in a position to adequately defend Christian theism nor is it my desire to, but even so I think Dawkins treatment of the Bible is a more than ameturish. I don't have to be a Bible scholar to point that out...this was in the same class of the larger problem that critics illustrated in that he was sloppy and lacked rigor.

In any case, my beef isn't with a particular construct of god. The Christian version is one among many others.

 

 

I'm not asking about the god conception from the point of view of the problem of evil - the evil thing is not a sticking point for me. I want to know what your god concept is - whether it's personal or just a general thing you reason must be there.

Just for the discussion of it, if Dawkins lack of understanding means nothing he says has value let's apply this ruling to Darwin, Einstein, Newton, Willis, Hubble, Pasteur. Hell, any empiricist's findings and opinions become worthless in the face of the great truths of philosophy. 

Dawkins may be no philosopher but he is still entitled to highlight moral inconsistencies in religious doctrine and his failings in terms of philosophical knowledge do not undermine the central issues he raises. Instead of considering the problems he highlights, most philospher theologists resort to special pleading or insist we can never know, or say we cannot apply our rules to a god concept - never mind these are the same people who claim to comprehend the mind of this same 'god'. It's a curious thing.  

Too often, Dawkins' philosophical weakness is raised as if somehow this failing means every question he asks about monotheism is somehow void. He's still a great biologist and his Ancestor's Tale is far more profound and demonstrably true than anything his critics have ever dished up, dry as a fossilized bone though it may be. 

Sure, I'm aware you are not a christian but you are defensive of supernatural god concepts and you do imply we have a moral obligation to this god concept - or so it seems to me. I'm still interested in the nature of god from your perspective. Or if you see there being no need for a god to be comprehensible to us?

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:I'm

Atheistextremist wrote:


I'm not asking about the god conception from the point of view of the problem of evil - the evil thing is not a sticking point for me. I want to know what your god concept is - whether it's personal or just a general thing you reason must be there.

It's not something that is just there... My belief is more pragmatic in nature. It doesn't assert the necessary existence of something, but considers the possibility of such things and the implications such things have on me as a person....  To for that, it's probably personal to answer your question.

Atheistextremist wrote:

Just for the discussion of it, if Dawkins lack of understanding means nothing he says has value let's apply this ruling to Darwin, Einstein, Newton, Willis, Hubble, Pasteur. Hell, any empiricist's findings and opinions become worthless in the face of the great truths of philosophy. 

The issue I have with Dawkins is lack of understanding, rather lack of rigor. For someone with his intellectual prowess, he severely disappoints in his book.

Atheistextremist wrote:

Dawkins may be no philosopher but he is still entitled to highlight moral inconsistencies in religious doctrine and his failings in terms of philosophical knowledge do not undermine the central issues he raises. Instead of considering the problems he highlights, most philospher theologists resort to special pleading or insist we can never know, or say we cannot apply our rules to a god concept - never mind these are the same people who claim to comprehend the mind of this same 'god'. It's a curious thing.  

IMHO, Dawkins expressed nothing new or particularly insightful. The God Delusion just repackaged the angst of many before him with his name on it. If I want to read about the moral inconsistencies in the Christian or Jewish conception of God, I'd probably choose someone else...

Atheistextremist wrote:

Too often, Dawkins' philosophical weakness is raised as if somehow this failing means every question he asks about monotheism is somehow void. He's still a great biologist and his Ancestor's Tale is far more profound and demonstrably true than anything his critics have ever dished up, dry as a fossilized bone though it may be. 

I think the questions Dawkins raises are answered in rebuttals, but not necessarily in direct responses to Dawkins himself.

People are pointing out his amateurish handling of particular issues because it seems that he didn't make much of an effort to look up such things. But given what I know about Dawkins, he views entertaining such ideas as giving credibility to them, and maybe therein lies the problem. At the same time, the opposition looks at his writings and see someone that didn't bother to do his homework. This puts Dawkins in a Catch-22, so it seems...

Atheistextremist wrote:

Sure, I'm aware you are not a christian but you are defensive of supernatural god concepts and you do imply we have a moral obligation to this god concept - or so it seems to me. I'm still interested in the nature of god from your perspective. Or if you see there being no need for a god to be comprehensible to us?

My conception of a god is not all that well defined as of right now.

But at the same time, the sort of  "moral obligation" that people unduly heap upon existing conceptions of gods I think are unwarranted.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:Mostly

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Mostly pragmatism. C.S. Lewis said something that expresses the nature of how I think, but not necessarily about Christianity...

"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

My take of Pascals Wager.

If the Christian god exists, he must be a total dick. Do we need to forward you all the OT passages where he either commits or orders genocide, plagues, war and torture? Jesus himself confirms torment instead of paradise for most people.

If there is a god that is not a dick to dole out punishment and reward, he would be fine with believing what you want, doing what you want being what you want without fear or because he needs his ass kissed.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:My take of Pascals

EXC wrote:

My take of Pascals Wager.

I borrowed from Pascal... I didn't take Pascal hook line and sinker....

EXC wrote:

If the Christian god exists, he must be a total dick. Do we need to forward you all the OT passages where he either commits or orders genocide, plagues, war and torture? Jesus himself confirms torment instead of paradise for most people.

If there is a god that is not a dick to dole out punishment and reward, he would be fine with believing what you want, doing what you want being what you want without fear or because he needs his ass kissed.

Who said anything about the Christian God or the OT here? Christian theism is but one brand among many....

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1711
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

ex-minister wrote:

There is not a problem. He is just malevolent then. So we got a prick for a sky daddy. That is at least good established. I would rather know the truth that do some fucking pretense of he is all loving. So it just boils down to it is as if he doesn't exists because if he has no compassion for a child then why even bother concerning yourself with something invisible.

Do rich people having money and not giving it away to solve the problem of poverty make them "pricks"?

The ability to act and the choosing not to do so does not necessarily make one malevolent....

ex-minister wrote:

Neglected and abused children do learn to fend for themselves.

And neglected and abused children do learn to fend for themselves....

And people who are able to do something about it don't...all the while many such people theist and atheist alike get mad at a god because they think that a god should help them.

Yes the rich are malevolent if they do nothing when it is entirely in their power. Humans recognize that and even in story. Charles Dicken's "A Christmas Carol" with Ebenezer Scrooge. Here Scrooge could help Bob Crachit's child Tiny Tim and if he doesn't Tim will die. You don't see Scrooge as mean spirited before he wakes up? 

So in this situation you would choose to do nothing? And if so would you be fine with it?

Then there is Potter in "It's a wonderful life".

These show that humans at least have the concept of helping someone in desperate need. We reward good samaritans and hate those who turn away. 

 

And the one big difference between the finite rich and infinite god is the rich don't have endless wealth. They can only give so much and they can only see so much being very limited humans. An all-knowing and all-powerful god, where it would cost him absolutely nothing to help, he loses nothing, that you want to support with some term other than malevolent?

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If a person in normal

If a person in normal health, with normal mobility, stood on the sidewalk and watched a young child crawl across in front of him toward a busy roadway, and did nothing but watch as the child was run over and killed by the traffic, would you, ubuntu, say he was morally 'in the clear', did not deserve any criticism for not taking the simple actions which would have prevented the child's death??

More so should we judge as malevolent a powerful being who actually set us in a world of potential natural disasters, infested with disease-causing organism and parasites of his active creation, who simply watches as millions of children, among others, succumb to those evils.

Do you have any idea yet what kind of kind you think is most likely?

I think most of those people you referred to in your OP were definitely in the camp of the Xian god, so why do you identify to any extent with them if you keep denying that your 'God' concept is really like that? Insofar as you actually have formed one yet...

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


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:Yes the

ex-minister wrote:

Yes the rich are malevolent if they do nothing when it is entirely in their power. Humans recognize that and even in story. Charles Dicken's "A Christmas Carol" with Ebenezer Scrooge. Here Scrooge could help Bob Crachit's child Tiny Tim and if he doesn't Tim will die. You don't see Scrooge as mean spirited before he wakes up? 

So in this situation you would choose to do nothing? And if so would you be fine with it?

You're conflating "choosing to do nothing" with "obligated to do something". Until you get that straight, I don't think you have an argument.

ex-minister wrote:

And the one big difference between the finite rich and infinite god is the rich don't have endless wealth. They can only give so much and they can only see so much being very limited humans. An all-knowing and all-powerful god, where it would cost him absolutely nothing to help, he loses nothing, that you want to support with some term other than malevolent?

But at the same time, if what you're saying is true, there shouldn't be rich people---even middle class people with disposable income because they should give everything they have until they have nothing left to give.... Unless they do this, they are malevolent...

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote: In terms

ex-minister wrote:

 

In terms of an all-powerful, all-knowing being, who could save a child with zero effort, yet does nothing, I would call that neglectful, indifferent malevolence. The all-loving characteristic certainly does not apply.

I totally agree ex-minister.

To put that in an analogy, that would be like me running to a doctor in a crowd, telling them that someone had just keeled over and needed medical attention, and the doctor's reply being "Why should I help the person ? Your just as responsible for the well being of other people as I,".

If god is supposedly our creator, then would he not bear a bigger responsibility than his creations ?

If my five year old niece got hurt on the playground at school, should the teacher who is supposed to be watching the kids, blame the other little children for the accident ?

EDIT : If a parent states that they are not "obligated" to help their children or care for their children and neglect them, we finite humans take the children away from them. So why should some "creator of the universe" suddenly wash his hands of the whole situation and say "I am not obligated to help anyone"? Maybe it is not, but  that still does not change the fact that it would be irresponsible and neglectful to it's own creations. Which would mean that if something like that existed, I am not "obligated" to follow it or give it the time of day.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:If a person

BobSpence wrote:

If a person in normal health, with normal mobility, stood on the sidewalk and watched a young child crawl across in front of him toward a busy roadway, and did nothing but watch as the child was run over and killed by the traffic, would you, ubuntu, say he was morally 'in the clear', did not deserve any criticism for not taking the simple actions which would have prevented the child's death??

Is such a person morally obligated to do anything to save the child? If you answer "yes" then I think, in order to be consistent, have to answer "yes" to this to a more tangible real-world scenario such as the one I gave above concerning the wealthy-- or even the middle class (probably such as yourself) and poverty (or even worse, starvation)... such people are by your standard watch men, women, and children die everyday in droves and do nothing. Are such people morally "in the clear"?

BobSpence wrote:
More so should we judge as malevolent a powerful being who actually set us in a world of potential natural disasters, infested with disease-causing organism and parasites of his active creation, who simply watches as millions of children, among others, succumb to those evils.

What you're doing is obligating someone to something and then getting pissed off at him or her because he or she doesn't act according to how you think said person should act.....

BobSpence wrote:
Do you have any idea yet what kind of kind you think is most likely?

I think most of those people you referred to in your OP were definitely in the camp of the Xian god, so why do you identify to any extent with them if you keep denying that your 'God' concept is really like that? Insofar as you actually have formed one yet...

I've never denied or affirmed anything about my "god concept"... my problem is not so much a problem with a "god concept" as it is with how quickly people are to burden unnecessarily others with moral obligations then get pissed off at them when they don't act... Or how they pick and choose to burden some but not others or even themselves. In fact, we could stop talking about a god altogether and the same problem still exists.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote: But at

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

 

But at the same time, if what you're saying is true, there shouldn't be rich people---even middle class people with disposable income because they should give everything they have until they have nothing left to give.... Unless they do this, they are malevolent...

Since when would a creator run out of resources like rich people ?

If a painting is bad, do you blame the paint or the painter ? If a watch can not keep time, do you blame the watch or the watchmaker?

After all, if all of us creations are so inherently flawed without a creator. Then obviously, the creator must be inherently flawed.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:BobSpence

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

If a person in normal health, with normal mobility, stood on the sidewalk and watched a young child crawl across in front of him toward a busy roadway, and did nothing but watch as the child was run over and killed by the traffic, would you, ubuntu, say he was morally 'in the clear', did not deserve any criticism for not taking the simple actions which would have prevented the child's death??

Is such a person morally obligated to do anything to save the child? If you answer "yes" then I think, in order to be consistent, have to answer "yes" to this to a more tangible real-world scenario such as the one I gave above concerning the wealthy-- or even the middle class (probably such as yourself) and poverty (or even worse, starvation)... such people are by your standard watch men, women, and children die everyday in droves and do nothing. Are such people morally "in the clear"?

BobSpence wrote:
More so should we judge as malevolent a powerful being who actually set us in a world of potential natural disasters, infested with disease-causing organism and parasites of his active creation, who simply watches as millions of children, among others, succumb to those evils.

What you're doing is obligating someone to something and then getting pissed off at him or her because he or she doesn't act according to how you think said person should act.....

BobSpence wrote:
Do you have any idea yet what kind of kind you think is most likely?

I think most of those people you referred to in your OP were definitely in the camp of the Xian god, so why do you identify to any extent with them if you keep denying that your 'God' concept is really like that? Insofar as you actually have formed one yet...

I've never denied or affirmed anything about my "god concept"... my problem is not so much a problem with a "god concept" as it is with how quickly people are to burden unnecessarily others with moral obligations then get pissed off at them when they don't act... Or how they pick and choose to burden some but not others or even themselves. In fact, we could stop talking about a god altogether and the same problem still exists.

None of what you said applies to humans, humans are NOT all powerful. We cannot physically take care of the entire world's population. We are not super human.

We are finite and our natural human behavior is BOTH good and bad, and none of our actions as a species, good or bad depend on a magic super hero or super villain.

And all powerful, all loving god(as a claim) SHOULD not be a selective deadbeat. The nature of reality contradicts those terms as claimed attributes.

"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:EDIT :

harleysportster wrote:
EDIT : If a parent states that they are not "obligated" to help their children or care for their children and neglect them, we finite humans take the children away from them. So why should some "creator of the universe" suddenly wash his hands of the whole situation and say "I am not obligated to help anyone"? Maybe it is not, but  that still does not change the fact that it would be irresponsible and neglectful to it's own creations. Which would mean that if something like that existed, I am not "obligated" to follow it or give it the time of day.

Being a parent is a cognitive choice that isn't the product of happenstance... one's obligation to care for his or her children stems from a choice he or she made in the first place. I think you're making a category mistake.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:None of what

Brian37 wrote:

None of what you said applies to humans, humans are NOT all powerful. We cannot physically take care of the entire world's population. We are not super human.

We are finite and our natural human behavior is BOTH good and bad, and none of our actions as a species, good or bad depend on a magic super hero or super villain.

Now you're special pleading...

Remove an all power being from the picture. It's not necessary.

Replace it with a really powerful being or a moderately powerful being...

I'm not asking you to take care of the whole world.... but you can take care of one, two or three maybe more, can your not? Is that not just the example that Bob gave concerning the child and the bus?? A single individual with the ability to act.

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
So you are just objecting to

So you are just objecting to the idea of 'moral obligation'? Is that the effective sum total of your position??

All of the people you mentioned in your OP would be ashamed to be associated with you.

If we don't do what we can easily do to assist others in distress, we should rightfully be condemned. You really dodged that point in my example.

I am a sucker for making donations to charities of all kinds, even over recent times when I have been under severe financial stress myself.

What would be a bit absurd would be to give to the point of putting yourself in poverty.

If we over-donate, to the point of stuffing up our own economies, we are not really going to help address these issues in the long run.

In the modern world, contributing skills to the development of a number of modern technologies, such as smart cell-phones, and other mobile technologies, is potentially a far more positive way to help many less-developed nations pull themselves out of their impoverished state. It is beginning to happen. I would dearly love to get myself into a secure enough position personally that I could seriously look into ways I could aid in such developments.

Once again you are making massive unwarranted assumptions about how I see things.

I see a bit of a pattern here - you seem to have a genuine lack of empathy and understanding of how other peoples minds work. Despite careful explanation of my position, you have repeatedly assumed I probably am simply failing to understand your position and stubbornly rejecting your ideas out-of-hand., and rigidly rejecting anything which doesn't "fit my world-view'".

Your ideas on God come across as very confused.

You seem to have very simplistic ideas. No wonder you are attracted to philosophy, the world of opinions dressed up as insight.

 

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


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

harleysportster wrote:
EDIT : If a parent states that they are not "obligated" to help their children or care for their children and neglect them, we finite humans take the children away from them. So why should some "creator of the universe" suddenly wash his hands of the whole situation and say "I am not obligated to help anyone"? Maybe it is not, but  that still does not change the fact that it would be irresponsible and neglectful to it's own creations. Which would mean that if something like that existed, I am not "obligated" to follow it or give it the time of day.

Being a parent is a cognitive choice that isn't the product of happenstance... one's obligation to care for his or her children stems from a choice he or she made in the first place. I think you're making a category mistake.

Then a creator that CHOSE to create a universe and allow imperfect human beings to exist would fall into the same category as the parent. The creator/god/goddess/spirit made that choice and therefore is obligated. Unless you would take the position that a god did not create us.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:Brian37

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

None of what you said applies to humans, humans are NOT all powerful. We cannot physically take care of the entire world's population. We are not super human.

We are finite and our natural human behavior is BOTH good and bad, and none of our actions as a species, good or bad depend on a magic super hero or super villain.

Now you're special pleading...

Remove an all power being from the picture. It's not necessary.

Replace it with a really powerful being or a moderately powerful being...

I'm not asking you to take care of the whole world.... but you can take care of one, two or three maybe more, can your not? Is that not just the example that Bob gave concerning the child and the bus?? A single individual with the ability to act.

 

Then what  is the point in using the word "god" or even "deity" or "super natural". Superman can be killed with Kriptonite. The "Force" of Star Wars can be just as easily defined as "more powerful" rather than "all powerful".

You are merely back peddling away from the core claim that there is "something" invisible out there with no material that has human thoughts. All powerful is the common attribute of the god of Luis. So unless you are not arguing for a Christian being, then don't quote fuckwads like him.

"Less filling vs tastes great" There is full flavor Bullshit, and then bullshit light. But bullshit is still bullshit.

You are trying to repackage the skunk in a new tux. The box with the pretty bow is still empty.

I can make shit up too.

My snarfwidget is invisible. I can pray to it for my Redskins to win, I can pray to my snarfwidget who is more powerful but not all powerful.  I still haven't defined what a snarfwiget is. I cant because it is "super natural".

You are not doing anything differently than the Egyptians did in thinking the sun itself was a god. You are not doing anything differently than the believers of Thor. Many of the Greek and Roman gods were gods with limited power but still had super natural powers.

Any appeal to a non material being, is stupid, by any name. It is merely talking to yourself. Generic deism is merely a step back from the gods of Abraham, but just as vacuous a claim with as much evidence. Invisible beings are merely the gap placebo reflection of humans wishing a super hero existed. It is merely all in your head.

There is no such thing as a thought existing without a material process. There never was and never will be. There are merely humans who like the idea of having a super hero. "I am not like the others" is bullshit. Yes you are. Changing details and names doesn't constitute ANY invisible magical super hero.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote: Now

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

 

Now you're special pleading...

Remove an all power being from the picture. It's not necessary.

Replace it with a really powerful being or a moderately powerful being...

I'm not asking you to take care of the whole world.... but you can take care of one, two or three maybe more, can your not? Is that not just the example that Bob gave concerning the child and the bus?? A single individual with the ability to act.

 

So god is not all powerful, just powerful ? Then I don't see it as necessary either.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Then what  is

Brian37 wrote:

Then what  is the point in using the word "god" or even "deity" or "super natural". Superman can be killed with Kriptonite. The "Force" of Star Wars can be just as easily defined as "more powerful" rather than "all powerful".

You are merely back peddling away from the core claim that there is "something" invisible out there with no material that has human thoughts. All powerful is the common attribute of the god of Luis. So unless you are not arguing for a Christian being, then don't quote fuckwads like him.

"Less filling vs tastes great" There is full flavor Bullshit, and then bullshit light. But bullshit is still bullshit.

You are trying to repackage the skunk in a new tux. The box with the pretty bow is still empty.

My snarfwidget is invisible. I can pray to it for my Redskins to win, I can pray to my snarfwidget who is more powerful but not all powerful.  I still haven't defined what a snarfwiget is. I cant because it is "super natural".

I can make shit up too.You are not doing anything differently than the Egyptians did in thinking the sun itself was a god. You are not doing anything differently than the believers of Thor. Many of the Greek and Roman gods were gods with limited power but still had super natural powers.

Any appeal to a non material being, is stupid, by any name. It is merely talking to yourself. Generic deism is merely a step back from the gods of Abraham, but just as vacuous a claim with as much evidence. Invisible beings are merely the gap placebo reflection of humans wishing a super hero existed. It is merely all in your head.

There is no such thing as a thought existing without a material process. There never was and never will be. There are merely humans who like the idea of having a super hero. "I am not like the others" is bullshit. Yes you are. Changing details and names doesn't constitute ANY invisible magical super hero.


My original contention was has always been against the general conception of heaping moral obligations on any sort of being... god, human, or otherwise... I'm not back-pedalling at all. I really could give a damn about whether or not one believe in a deity or not... the issues is still the same no matter who the burdens are placed on. I felt this way even as an atheist. You're detracting from the issue with caricatures and other red herrings that have nothing to do with the issue at hand...


 

 

 

 

 

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:So god is

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
So god is not all powerful, just powerful ? Then I don't see it as necessary either.

The issues doesn't necessarily involve gods. The problem isn't exclusive to gods etc.

But as an argument against a deity, it doesn't make sense. Even as an atheist, I saw the glaring problem with it...

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:So you are

BobSpence wrote:

So you are just objecting to the idea of 'moral obligation'? Is that the effective sum total of your position??

All of the people you mentioned in your OP would be ashamed to be associated with you.

This issue has very little to do with the OP.

BobSpence wrote:

If we don't do what we can easily do to assist others in distress, we should rightfully be condemned. You really dodged that point in my example.

I am a sucker for making donations to charities of all kinds, even over recent times when I have been under severe financial stress myself.

What would be a bit absurd would be to give to the point of putting yourself in poverty.

If we over-donate, to the point of stuffing up our own economies, we are not really going to help address these issues in the long run.

I am a sucker for donations too... I do it all the time, and I'm not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. But even so, giving money -- even a little bit -- is easy. I personally gave up eating fast food once a week so I could set aside the 5 bucks to basically pay for a kids healthcare, part of his food, and for his education in an impoverished country... The question I have is this: would it have been morally wrong if I knew that my 5 dollars a week could help a child in more ways than a greasy hamburger would ever help me?

Absurd or otherwise, I don't think that what I said is really all that far fetched considering the nature of your carefully crafted, purely hypothetical example.. what I'm talking about is going on around all the time...

 

BobSpence wrote:

In the modern world, contributing skills to the development of a number of modern technologies, such as smart cell-phones, and other mobile technologies, is potentially a far more positive way to help many less-developed nations pull themselves out of their impoverished state. It is beginning to happen. I would dearly love to get myself into a secure enough position personally that I could seriously look into ways I could aid in such developments.

Once again you are making massive unwarranted assumptions about how I see things.

I'm not making any assumptions about how you see things.. I'm looking at posts on this thread and questioning the soundness of them. You very well could aid someone... but that doesn't answer my question concerning obligation... and insofar as I can tell, no one has... they just continue to ask loaded (as you did) quesions and dodge the issue altogether.

BobSpence wrote:
I see a bit of a pattern here - you seem to have a genuine lack of empathy and understanding of how other peoples minds work. Despite careful explanation of my position, you have repeatedly assumed I probably am simply failing to understand your position and stubbornly rejecting your ideas out-of-hand., and rigidly rejecting anything which doesn't "fit my world-view'".

I don't lack empathy at all... I make no assumptions about what you think about my positions. The only thing I have to go on, on the other hand, is what you post here. And from what is seems, you find Pascal "laughable" without ever telling me why and make no apologies about your outright rejection of anything that even mentions something that might even hint at something supernatural among other things.

BobSpence wrote:

You seem to have very simplistic ideas. No wonder you are attracted to philosophy, the world of opinions dressed up as insight. 

Simplistic? Wouldn't that be better than complex ideas in any case according to Occam's Razor? But what you are writing off as "simplistic" I have stated over and over as being unformulated or otherwise not well founded... In otherwords, I don't have a formalized conception of god. I have made no effort to defend any form of theism, rather evaluated what you and others have said and responded. So what appears to the case is that you failed to understand what I have said altogether or your have assumed I was saying more than I was....

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:Brian37

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Then what  is the point in using the word "god" or even "deity" or "super natural". Superman can be killed with Kriptonite. The "Force" of Star Wars can be just as easily defined as "more powerful" rather than "all powerful".

You are merely back peddling away from the core claim that there is "something" invisible out there with no material that has human thoughts. All powerful is the common attribute of the god of Luis. So unless you are not arguing for a Christian being, then don't quote fuckwads like him.

"Less filling vs tastes great" There is full flavor Bullshit, and then bullshit light. But bullshit is still bullshit.

You are trying to repackage the skunk in a new tux. The box with the pretty bow is still empty.

My snarfwidget is invisible. I can pray to it for my Redskins to win, I can pray to my snarfwidget who is more powerful but not all powerful.  I still haven't defined what a snarfwiget is. I cant because it is "super natural".

I can make shit up too.You are not doing anything differently than the Egyptians did in thinking the sun itself was a god. You are not doing anything differently than the believers of Thor. Many of the Greek and Roman gods were gods with limited power but still had super natural powers.

Any appeal to a non material being, is stupid, by any name. It is merely talking to yourself. Generic deism is merely a step back from the gods of Abraham, but just as vacuous a claim with as much evidence. Invisible beings are merely the gap placebo reflection of humans wishing a super hero existed. It is merely all in your head.

There is no such thing as a thought existing without a material process. There never was and never will be. There are merely humans who like the idea of having a super hero. "I am not like the others" is bullshit. Yes you are. Changing details and names doesn't constitute ANY invisible magical super hero.

 

My original contention was has always been against the general conception of heaping moral obligations on any sort of being... god, human, or otherwise... I'm not back-pedalling at all. I really could give a damn about whether or not one believe in a deity or not... the issues is still the same no matter who the burdens are placed on. I felt this way even as an atheist. You're detracting from the issue with caricatures and other red herrings that have nothing to do with the issue at hand...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thoughts require a material process. PERIOD. To suggest that there is a "thing" out there that can think like a human that has no material, IS ABSURD, by any name, no matter what attributes you want to give it or what name you want to give it.

You are no different than any other human in human history. You may have been an atheist, but as far as I am concerned you might as well never have left theism. You are suffering the same self inflicted delusion of all the anthropomorphism no matter what pretty colors you want to slap on your empty box. You are merely projecting human qualities on a non-existent fantasy.

There never was a god and never will be a god. Gap filling is gap filling no matter who is doing it or why. All you are proving here is that you had a change of mind. Big woopty doo.

"I once was" is not an argument. Humans switch positions all the time, that hardly constitutes a universal standard. It just means you fell for something you like believing.

WHEN you can prove your pet invisible friend claim like we can prove DNA, mitosis, computers, cell phones, galaxies, black holes, ect ect ect, until then you have nothing.

I'm sorry it bothers you that I am pulling back the curtain and exposing your fantasy for what it is. You merely want a super hero to exist. Just because you claimed to have been an atheist doesn't mean shit to me. I used to be a Christian, so what?

"It's true, why don't you believe me".

EVIDENCE, plain and simple. You don't have it otherwise you'd have a Nobel Prize and beat everyone to the patent office by now.

"Allah, God, Yahweh, Thor, Marduke, god(generic), invisible thinking "something", are the same as Harry Potter. Klingons and tooth fairy. Fiction is fiction no matter how you dress it up and delude yourself into swallowing crap, no matter how elaborate the crap is.

Your pet fictional invisible friend is no different than any claimed in human history. It is merely another delusion with different colors.

 

 

 

"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:Gauche

ex-minister wrote:

Gauche wrote:

 It's not a matter of obligation to help. Helping people when you have the ability shows that you have a friendly, kind attitude. It's a display of good-will. Malevolence is an expression of ill-will. 

In terms of an all-powerful, all-knowing being, who could save a child with zero effort, yet does nothing, I would call that neglectful, indifferent malevolence. The all-loving characteristic certainly does not apply.

 

I don't know if it's malevolence. I was only saying that if one doesn't help another and is said to be malevolent the accusation is about his attitude towards the person he didn't help. It's more a question of wanting to help than being obliged. I think the idea is that the more someone can help the safer it is to assume that they're not helping because of ill-will.

Most people would agree that there is a moral obligation to help those you know and like because you voluntarily entered into a relationship with mutual expectations. When it comes to people you don't know and like the answer seems to be in general no but with some exceptions. There appear to be morally acceptable limits to how unhelpful one can be.

 

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft