Quote:

---

but if you raise your children to be atheists, and they use it as a justification to persecute someone else, then ought that to reflect back on your atheism the same way you propose the actions of his family ought to reflect back on his beliefs?

---

The thing is...HOW much persecution do we have IN THE NAME OF atheism?

Quote:

---

but if you raise your children to be atheists, and they use it as a justification to persecute someone else, then ought that to reflect back on your atheism the same way you propose the actions of his family ought to reflect back on his beliefs?

---

I prefer to just leave the supernatural in the story books, since it is a fiction. That is what my analogy was actually saying after all!


Mr. P.

Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!

Mr. P's Bookshelf.

I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

misterpessimistic: The thing is...HOW much persecution do we have IN THE NAME OF atheism?

What do you mean by "in the name of atheism"? If you mean, persecution of theists by atheists, in the interest of irradicating religions, then we have plenty of it. If you want specific references, you can re-read the Dawkins thread that's been closed and relocated to the forum for "The God Delusion" discussion.

I prefer to just leave the supernatural in the story books, since it is a fiction.

Fine. But if you want to convince me of that, you're going to have to do more than just assert it.

Quote:

---

If you want specific references, you can re-read the Dawkins thread that's been closed

---

I think I remember some of those references...but I also believe someon mentioned that these instances were NOT in the NAME OF atheism, but of some other dogmatic ideology.

So...ah...no...


Mr. P.

Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!

Mr. P's Bookshelf.

I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Mad

Quote:

---

You may be right about the first half of your statement, but it's inaccurate to suppose that I'm equating God to nature. That's a cosmological position; what I'm talking about is an ontological position.

---

What you are calling god I call natural until I see some reason to change that definition.

Mad

Quote:

---

That's working pretty well so far, is it?

---

Actually yes, the last time I checked Atheism was the fastest growing belief in America, furthermore this tactic has helped keep religious belief out of our public school system.

Mad

Quote:

---

If they're really intent on, say, improving their own situation through violence, then making jihadist Islamicism untenable will only force them to find another justification. It seems more practical to me to put our efforts towards getting people to fit their behavior to a model, and let them adapt their own beliefs to that behavior.

---

And how would you recommend changing their behavior without taking away the justification?

Mad

Quote:

---

They might. Can the same not be said for every position?

---

No, because not every position encourages intolerance of other beliefs.

Later

Niall--

In regards to your remarks about Godel, his theorem is only applicable to formal systems. Your use of it elsewhere is like attempting to argue that our conception of the solar system, with its star and various planets, is necessarily incomplete. It's not really applicable.

Quote:

---

Imagine a cimpanzee looking up into the sky and the sun and declaring: "I understand all that you are, great energy in all places and all times...I have surveyed the total horizon of your domain...and have deemed, for a fact, that you cannot be created or destroyed!"

---

This "fact" would be based upon observation and experience, though, unlike claims about God. If we have never really seen energy "created" or "destroyed", we have an initial reason to believe that this is so. However, in regards to God, we cannot make such an assumption, because God is posited only as an explanation for contingency, not because we have any sensory input to validate this claim.

Quote:

---

Again, imagine the Chimp: "All of this, as far as I can see or imagine, everything, even things I can't imagine or can't see...none of this is necessary: there is no necessity anywhere for anything ever...this I know, because I know everything."

---

I have not said what the chimp is saying, Dissident. All that I have said is it is not contradictory to believe that all that exists is contingent and there is no necessary existence. I am not claiming that I know for a fact that this is the case, only that it is a possibility and there is no reason to exclude it by asserting that God is the real explanation. The whole basis of the contingency argument for God's existence rests upon the unfounded premise that contingent things cannot exist on their own, and this is plainly false.

Quote:

---

And, you know this how?...."now, let me tell you the entirety of my birth...all that it meant, its causes, purposes, and all the complexities of its contingencies...and let me show you how none of it was necessary...a non-necessity."

---

I know my birth is contingent for the simple fact that it is not self-contradictory to say something like, "I may have not existed!"

So, let's look at my argument again, instead of misrepresenting it with implausible stuff about chimps looking at the sun, shall we?

Mad is arguing that we have reason to believe in God because God explains why there is something rather than nothing. Most everything in the universe can be conceived of as not existing, and therefore they are contingent. What is needed is something that necessarily exists to form the foundation of this contingent existence.

My critique of this is to remark that God does not explain why there is something rather than nothing--instead, the argument asserts that at some point we don't need to explain existence, that something can "necessarily" exist. Of course, we don't know the identity of this necessary existence--all we know is that it necessarily exists, and it coudl very well be energy, a giant flying goat, or God. Even if Mad's argument proved that something necessarily exists, it wouldn't prove what this thing is, only that it necessarily exists.

My second point focuses on the premises, arguing that Mad's argument doesn't prove that something necessarily exists. The premise that contingent things cannot exist without a necessary existence to found it is false. Perhaps the entire universe may have not existed, but the fact that it may have not existed doesn't entail that it DOESN'T exist if the universe is in fact all there is. It just means that its existence isn't necessary.

St. G: If we have never really seen energy "created" or "destroyed", we have an initial reason to believe that this is so.

The point is that we don't really know what energy is: where it comes from, how it got here, where it's headed...tell me the history of energy- all of it. You can't, and don't even know where to begin...none of us do. Matter in motion is all you see...what you call energy is largely artistic license: or, when stated as authoritatively as you have...it's a form of theology. When we start to discuss why energy matters to you, then I think we might get a little closer to the closeted theologian pulling the wires and turning the knobs behind your physics.

St. G: However, in regards to God, we cannot make such an assumption, because God is posited only as an explanation for contingency, not because we have any sensory input to validate this claim.

God may be posited, or God may be loved: two very different approaches to making sense of what really matters about reality. The first is good for, well, I don't know what it's good for....no wonder we don't have any sensory input to validate this claim! It doesn't make any difference, doesn't make any claims, doesn't offer or expect anything in return...it doesn't matter. Now, the second, that's something we can sink our teeth into and maybe learn a thing or two about what matters.

St G: The whole basis of the contingency argument for God's existence rests upon the unfounded premise that contingent things cannot exist on their own, and this is plainly false.

Tell me: do you exist on your own? Of course not. There are ten thousand thousand people, places, events, things that whirl in ten thousand thousand ways to bring St. Gasoline to this moment, here and now. Break it down as tiny or expand it as immensely as you choose: there is no "exist on their own"...what there is, is relationship. Which, as a theologian I am willing to risk saying, is crucial to deciding what matters about God: understanding relationships. Dig into the messiness of relationships and wrestle with the pain and joy of love...then, maybe, we can talk about how God matters.

St. G: I know my birth is contingent for the simple fact that it is not self-contradictory to say something like, "I may have not existed!"

I should think an even simpler fact would be your belly button. That belly button needed an umbilical cord, which needed a placenta, which needed a womb, which needed a mommy, who needed a daddy, and all the needed mess and tumble we call family, culture, society, politics, ecosystems, and all the rest of Carl Sagan's Cosmic Calendar....I see all kinds of necessary stuff all over the place. All kinds of things needing all kinds of things, everywhere it seems. Perhaps this is another clue about God: something to do with needs; decide what needs really matter, or, what matter really needs, and you're on the right track.

DH

Quote:

---

What matters about matter and energy? Time is precious, energy limited, and matter doesn't come cheap: therefore, we make decisions regarding priorities and objectives...these priorities are the stuff of myth and theology:

---

I just want to be clear here, your argument is that without myth or the creation of theology matter does not matter?

If this is the case what about the people who had to deal with matter before myths and theology were created, were they unable to determine priorities?

DH

Quote:

---

The statement: energy cannot be created or destroyed is as mythic a statement and theological a pronouncement as any...or, at least it smells like it.

---

I will agree that when pronounced with the authority of fact the statement you mentioned can sound theological. However from what science has observed so far it does appear to be true, and at least the scientific point of view has real world data to back it up; religions cannot make such a claim.

DH

Quote:

---

I think it's time for the Atheists in this crowd to snap out of their delusion that somehow they have risen above this clearly human phenomena. "We are smarter, wiser, cleaner, braver, freer than the rest of you sorry lot of humanity...so stupid, cowardly, wallowing in your superstition and ignorance."

---

And many atheists think its time that the theists snap out of their delusion that their way is the best and only way, and stop trying to push it on the rest of us.

You don't often see atheists attacking the belief of Buddhists or Hindus; the reason is that these religions pretty much keep to themselves. The current attack on Christianity and Islam is a knee jerk reaction from a frustrated minority.

Many atheists also believe that religions have gotten off to easy for the last couple of thousand years, and if they insist on preaching about some apparently imaginary being that they should offer up some evidence or be criticized along with the flat earthers and Bigfoot supporters.

DH

Quote:

---

As for arguing religiously for the Jesus myth, I suppose that means with intrepid fervor and committed passion, with a real love and excitement for the subject? I hope it doesn't mean with rigid close minded hatefulness.

---

For you, I would ascribe the first description, although I have debated about Jesus with the latter as well both are fun for me, but I do respect your position far more.

DH

Quote:

---

As I see it, Jesus matters, and is worth the time and effort to discuss, explore, read about, write about, pray and sing and dance and grieve too!

---

I also see some merit in discussing Jesus, but I see it as discussing myth just as I see merit in discussing the trials of Hercules.

DH

Quote:

---

Like other things between humans: greed, sloth, avarice, vengeance, resentment, hubris, wretched cruelty and simple stupidity, and fear too all have a role to play.

---

This is a given.

Later

Frank 013: These are your words from one of our previous discussions...
me: The philosophical reason is ontological in character: the basic question is, why should anything exist rather than nothing?
Frank: And I say it is as easily attributed to something natural in origin.

Okay, so why don't you tell me, in entirely naturalistic terms, why anything should exist rather than not exist?

me: How would I recommend changing their behavior? Give them some convincing reason for why they should see their interests as being bound up with the interests of the people around them.
Frank: That sounds nice but how do you get them to believe something like that when their religion teaches them that those people are evil and must be destroyed to save their own faith?

At root, Frank, I think you and I have very different ideas as to why people believe certain things and what that belief entails for them. I won't offer any particular estimation of how you've arrived at your view of it, but I will say, in defense of my own, that I spend the vast majority of my free time trying to understand other people and why they do the things they do and believe the things they believe. I know I have a reputation around here for having my face permanently stuck in a book, but that's just not the case. My point in saying all of this is that, your point of view seems to leave no room for the sort of solutions I'm suggesting. So I don't see much point in going into it. I don't think belief is some permanent fixture in a person's life, translating automatically into behavior of a certain sort. And I don't believe that most people accept belief wholesale from some other source, be it religion, science or their parents. As best I can tell, belief is something fluid and dynamic, that changes moment to moment and can only be taken as consistent if we look at it from the Aristotelian point of view. The only points I have to recommend this view to you are a) that I think it holds up better when you actually look at specific instances of people believing and behaving, and b) that it allows for a different set of solutions than those that you seem to think are the only solutions practicable.

Or in the situation of the religious forcing their morality on others through law, how does the common interest theory help curb that behavior?

If you can convince religious believers that it's in everyone's interests, including their own, to keep a clear division between morality and law, religion and governance -- in other words, that it's good for everyone to have a clearly demarcated secular space -- then naturally they'll seek to preserve that secular space. That they don't seems to me a pretty clear indication that they aren't convinced that it's in their best interest.

And just to let everyone know, if I don't immediately reply to comments directed to me, or if I don't reply as fully as I used to (a major disappointment for everyone, I'm sure), it's because I'm spending much less time online these days. There's a lot of stuff going on in my life these days, most of it very positive. I'll try to check in at least once a week, but don't hold it against me if the interval sometimes runs longer than that.

Mad

Quote:

---

Okay, so why don't you tell me, in entirely naturalistic terms, why anything should exist rather than not exist?

---

Lets see... I will give you two natural possibilities.

One, it has always been there.

Two, there is as of yet an undiscovered natural explanation or laws that explain it.

Later

Frank 013: One, it has always been there.

That clears up absolutely nothing. It's tantemount to saying, "that's just the way things are, and what's the point of questioning the way things are?"

Two, there is as of yet an undiscovered natural explanation or laws that explain it.

This always strikes me as the naturalistic version of the God of the Gaps. "We don't currently have an explanation, but we're certainly be right in the end!" That isn't terribly far removed from, "We can't understand God's plan because we're mortal, but rest assured that there is a plan!"

Beyond which, I'm not sure how you would posit a naturalistic explanation for the fact that the material world exists rather than does not exist. Maybe you and I understand naturalism in radically different terms, but it seems to me that any naturalistic explanation pre-supposes the existence of a material world.

Mad

Quote:

---

This always strikes me as the naturalistic version of the God of the Gaps.

---

Well it is, sort of. There is no answer yet so all we can do is speculate, so until I see some evidence to the contrary I speculate that the answer is a natural one. I will not go a step further and assign a god to the gap unless I see some reason to.

Attributing an entity to an unknown should require some sort of evidence, don't you think?

Many people of faith before us have assigned god to explain so many different things and nearly all have been proven false. I will not take that step without good reason.

Mad

Quote:

---

It seems to me that any naturalistic explanation pre-supposes the existence of a material world.

---

If you are referring to the material world in which we live than yes but that is not a pre-supposition that is accepting the realistic/practical situation.

You can argue it philosophically all you want but that does not change the fact that a punch still hurts, the sun can burn your skin and death is final.

Later

Edited by: Frank 013 at: 1/15/07 3:44 am

Frank 013: Attributing an entity to an unknown should require some sort of evidence, don't you think?

Only if evidence is possible.

You can argue it philosophically all you want but that does not change the fact that a punch still hurts, the sun can burn your skin and death is final.

My point doesn't at all tend toward the suggesting that the real world isn't, in some sense, real. I'm hardly arguing for a Berkeleyian idealism here. Hell, I'm not even arguing for Platonic dualism. Why turn my train of though into something it isn't?

(And I don't particularly believe in an afterlife, but I'd be interested to know why you're so certain that death is final.)

Quote:

---

Mad
(And I don't particularly believe in an afterlife, but I'd be interested to know why you're so certain that death is final.)

---

I mean final in the sense that they are not coming back to this world.