Do Internet Atheists Have Anything New To Say?

Page 7 of 16 [ 242 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 16  Next

ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

02 May 2009, 12:27 pm

Tahitiii wrote:
vibratetogether wrote:
"I think all people ought to be offended by the religious proposition that without a supernatural, celestial dictatorship, we wouldn't know right from wrong."
I'm certainly offended.

How do we "know" right from wrong?

.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

02 May 2009, 12:34 pm

ouinon wrote:
Tahitiii wrote:
vibratetogether wrote:
"I think all people ought to be offended by the religious proposition that without a supernatural, celestial dictatorship, we wouldn't know right from wrong."
I'm certainly offended.

How do we "know" right from wrong?

.


We find out by working out systems that permit us to live together with minimum antagonisms and maximum benefits from our associations. Any cooperative successful human organization decides amongst its members how to behave.



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

02 May 2009, 1:09 pm

Sand wrote:
ouinon wrote:
How do we "know" right from wrong?
We find out by working out systems that permit us to live together with minimum antagonisms and maximum benefits from our associations. Any cooperative successful human organization decides amongst its members how to behave.

I phrased the question badly.

How does any one individual know right from wrong? How do you personally, or anyone else, know right from wrong?

If not because you are "told", one way or another, by some "authority" or another.

.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

02 May 2009, 1:21 pm

ouinon wrote:
Sand wrote:
ouinon wrote:
How do we "know" right from wrong?
We find out by working out systems that permit us to live together with minimum antagonisms and maximum benefits from our associations. Any cooperative successful human organization decides amongst its members how to behave.

I phrased the question badly.

How does any one individual know right from wrong? How do you personally, or anyone else, know right from wrong?

If not because you are "told", one way or another, by some "authority" or another.

.


We are not individuals floating in a social vacuum awaiting instruction from an unseen magical superbeing. We grow up in families and with others growing up and the bulk of social information is established through family tradition. If the families are religious that is part of the tradition. My family had nothing to do with religion so I learned what was proper and accepted through my parents, my associates, my teachers etc. I would think this is obvious.



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

02 May 2009, 1:37 pm

Sand wrote:
I would think this is obvious.

Yes, it is, which is why I don't understand what is offensive about believing that one's idea of right and wrong comes from god.

.



Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

02 May 2009, 2:02 pm

Haliphron wrote:
:lmao:


What a bunch of bullsh*t!

What was that for?

Quote:
There are PLENTY of other explanations for religious morals other than them coming from a supernatural being.

Yes. So?

Quote:
Also, WHAT makes you so sure that God wishes to remain undetectable?

I'm not absolutely certain, but it seems a reasonable conclusion. I remember a bible verse being used to make this point also, but I can't remember enough details to find it.

Quote:
You claim that if we try to come up with an experiment to verify his existence that he will interfere with in order to keep his existence non-falsifiable. Im sorry but that is clearly a proposed explanation for results of which there is a much simpler explanation.

If you're trying to bring up occam's razor, that won't help you. The existence of God explains a number of things. A simpler explaination, such as "God doesn't exist", wouldn't explain those things. So it is not unreasonable of me to believe that God does exist.

Quote:
What if I told you that I have an invisible purple dragon that lives in my house and if you try to do something to see that something is actually there he will disappear into another dimension...would you believe me?

Not likely. But then purple dragons aren't omniscient or omnipotent, are they? So theoretically, I could try to outsmart the purple dragon and detect it while it wasn't looking.

Quote:
You're using circular reasoning there buddy. If "statement A" is false than I can make a statement and its automatically true even without verification.

No, if statement A is false, then a statement that hasn't been verified may or may not be true. Statement A can be false. Statement A can also be true, but only if it is verified. You advanced statement A as true, so I pointed out that you needed to verify it.

Quote:
I can make statements that are INCONSISTENT and they are assumed to be true.

No, they're inconsistent.

Quote:
If I make a statement that the Earth is a flat plate on the back of a giant cosmic tortoise is that automatically a VALID statement?

It's not automatically true, no.

Quote:
If you made that statement I would insist that you show me in person where the edge of the Earth is so that I could VERIFY that such a statement is valid.

That would be a physical statement that would be subject to physical verification, so that would be reasonable.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


Haliphron
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,980

02 May 2009, 2:17 pm

Anacalgon and Awesomelyglorious: The reason why I am not a believer in God is for 2 important reasons:

1. NO physical evidence presented to me that a supernatural, supreme being exists.

2. NO personal contact with such a being; not even within my mind.

The conclusion that God wishes to remain undetectable is just a pathetic excuse unless you can provide some EVIDENCE(physical OR nonphysical) of it. You see, you are NOT going to convince me to take God seriously with philosophical arguments. Because after all, rhetoric can be used to construct an argument for ANYTHING, not matter how absurd or inaccurate.

As for the Bible, it is nothing more than a Book AFAIC. I could write a book that says the Earth is a flat plate resting on the back of a giant tortoise and the Moon is made of green cheese. :lol:

Ancalagon wrote:

That would be a physical statement that would be subject to physical verification, so that would be reasonable.


Ahhhhh! So you admit that when it comes to statements about the physical world that such statements do require verification after all! THAT is what I was specifically referring to when I said that Truth requires verification.



Last edited by Haliphron on 02 May 2009, 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Zyborg
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 459

02 May 2009, 2:18 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Whenever I see an argument against the existence of God, against the Bible, against Christianity, or yet another ploy of "it's not my job to provide proof!", I wonder to myself, "has this been said before?". And the answer to that question is almost certainly, "yes".

For "free-thinkers" I suppose it must be difficult not to think up original arguments.

Here is a good view of the Internet: "vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the chatter abideth for ever."


Do you believe in Donald Duck?

If not: Why?



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

02 May 2009, 2:23 pm

Haliphron wrote:
I am not a believer in God is for 2 important reasons:
1. NO physical evidence presented to me that a supernatural, supreme being exists.
2. NO personal contact with such a being; not even within my mind.

Do you believe in "truth", or "beauty" or "justice" or "right and wrong"? If so, why?

.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

02 May 2009, 2:30 pm

ouinon wrote:
Sand wrote:
I would think this is obvious.

Yes, it is, which is why I don't understand what is offensive about believing that one's idea of right and wrong comes from god.

.


The offensive element is not that right and wrong came from God. It is that humans are inherently incapable of discovering what rules their society should live by. Since the words presumed to come from God have always been proclaimed by men and since it is not common experience or validated experience to have contact with God directly I and many others logically assume that the claims to speak words from God is a scam to gain power over society. To some degree it seems to have worked which indicates not that God exists but that a great many gullible people exist.



Haliphron
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,980

02 May 2009, 2:35 pm

ouinon wrote:
Haliphron wrote:
I am not a believer in God is for 2 important reasons:
1. NO physical evidence presented to me that a supernatural, supreme being exists.
2. NO personal contact with such a being; not even within my mind.

Do you believe in "truth", or "beauty" or "justice" or "right and wrong"? If so, why?

.


Yes I do, but HOW does this follow from what you quoted me saying?

Anacalgon wrote:
Quote:
You claim that if we try to come up with an experiment to verify his existence that he will interfere with in order to keep his existence non-falsifiable. Im sorry but that is clearly a proposed explanation for results of which there is a much simpler explanation.

If you're trying to bring up occam's razor, that won't help you. The existence of God explains a number of things. A simpler explaination, such as "God doesn't exist", wouldn't explain those things. So it is not unreasonable of me to believe that God does exist.


If there is NO effective way to test the validity of the claim that God exists than God's existence is NON-falsifiable.Actually, Occams razor certainly DOES help me quite a bit. You are trying to argue that God exists and since you are making the claim you bear the burden of demonstrating this claim and convincing your opponents. Im not claiming God does not, or cannot exist. But you are claiming "he" does. As for the Purple Dragon, HOW do YOU know he isnt omiscient and omnipotent?
As I pointed out in a much older thread, ominpotence has some Major Problems.



Last edited by Haliphron on 02 May 2009, 2:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

02 May 2009, 2:38 pm

Haliphron wrote:
The conclusion that God wishes to remain undetectable is just a pathetic excuse unless you can provide some EVIDENCE(physical OR nonphysical) of it. You see, you are NOT going to convince me to take God seriously with philosophical arguments.

Nonphysical evidence includes philosophical arguments, which you reject completely.

I wish you'd stop labelling things as pathetic excuses, just because you happen to disagree.

Quote:
Ancalagon wrote:

That would be a physical statement that would be subject to physical verification, so that would be reasonable.


Ahhhhh! So you admit that when it comes to statements about the physical world that such statements do require verification after all! THAT is what I was specifically referring to when I said that Truth requires verification.

Are you rejecting non-physical truth? If so, why do you use logical arguments? Logic is non-physical.

If that is what you mean by "truth", then you shouldn't use the word truth. Use something like "physically verified statement".


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

02 May 2009, 2:39 pm

ouinon wrote:
Sand wrote:
I would think this is obvious.

Yes, it is, which is why I don't understand what is offensive about believing that one's idea of right and wrong comes from god.

.

Let me ask you this: If there is no god and you still believe there exists, which appears to be the case, wouldn't you still have that so-called concept of morals?


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

02 May 2009, 2:41 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
Haliphron wrote:
The conclusion that God wishes to remain undetectable is just a pathetic excuse unless you can provide some EVIDENCE(physical OR nonphysical) of it. You see, you are NOT going to convince me to take God seriously with philosophical arguments.

Nonphysical evidence includes philosophical arguments, which you reject completely.

I wish you'd stop labelling things as pathetic excuses, just because you happen to disagree.

Quote:
Ancalagon wrote:

That would be a physical statement that would be subject to physical verification, so that would be reasonable.


Ahhhhh! So you admit that when it comes to statements about the physical world that such statements do require verification after all! THAT is what I was specifically referring to when I said that Truth requires verification.

Are you rejecting non-physical truth? If so, why do you use logical arguments? Logic is non-physical.

If that is what you mean by "truth", then you shouldn't use the word truth. Use something like "physically verified statement".

"Non-physical" makes no sense to me. Even concepts such as philosophy and logic is extension of our brain. Please explain what you mean and how you know it.


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


Haliphron
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,980

02 May 2009, 2:45 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
Haliphron wrote:
The conclusion that God wishes to remain undetectable is just a pathetic excuse unless you can provide some EVIDENCE(physical OR nonphysical) of it. You see, you are NOT going to convince me to take God seriously with philosophical arguments.

Nonphysical evidence includes philosophical arguments, which you reject completely.

I wish you'd stop labelling things as pathetic excuses, just because you happen to disagree.

Quote:
Ancalagon wrote:

That would be a physical statement that would be subject to physical verification, so that would be reasonable.


Ahhhhh! So you admit that when it comes to statements about the physical world that such statements do require verification after all! THAT is what I was specifically referring to when I said that Truth requires verification.

Are you rejecting non-physical truth? If so, why do you use logical arguments? Logic is non-physical.

If that is what you mean by "truth", then you shouldn't use the word truth. Use something like "physically verified statement".


Philosophical arguments are purely rhetoric unless you can demonstrate that they have some basis in Reality. As for logic, it turns out that it IS physical. Logic(and even mathematics)is hardwired into the nervous systems of many animals, including us. :wink: You still havent demonstrated logically that God actually does exist. Sorry for the sarcasm, I'll try to be a little more civilized.

If someone claims God exists and cant provide any sort of tangible evidence(to my external sense OR directly through my mind), and then tells me that God is undetectable, the conclusion I draw is that they are trying to cover up the fact that the cannot prove it to me. This is consistent with the fact that people can be dishonest and dont like to admit to being wrong.
This isnt an accusation against you personally , but its a histogram of my thought processes.



Last edited by Haliphron on 02 May 2009, 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

02 May 2009, 2:47 pm

Haliphron wrote:
ouinon wrote:
Haliphron wrote:
I am not a believer in God is for 2 important reasons:
1. NO physical evidence presented to me that a supernatural, supreme being exists.
2. NO personal contact with such a being; not even within my mind.

Do you believe in "truth", or "beauty" or "justice" or "right and wrong"? If so, why?
Yes I do, but HOW does this follow from what you quoted me saying?

What physical evidence do you have for the existence of any of those? And isn't your "contact" with any of them limited to purely subjective experience?

.