nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Can a Theist substantiate belief based claims? Spin-off from off topic.

nozzferrahhtoo

Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: »

A belief system which does not recognise objective morality or natural law

I asked in another post, but was entirely ignored by you, whether you would be different to any other theists who come into this forum in that you could substantiate the existence of a god. Or would I be wasting both of our time by asking.

I would repeat that question here only slightly altered. Why would we want a belief system that "recognises" something no one seemingly has ANY modicum of evidence even exists? Perhaps you should move to substantiate the existence of an "Objective" or "natural" morality or law here before any of us should consider a belief system which recognises it and incorporates it?

Do you have any such arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest the existence of any such thing? Or would this be another one of those nebulous "faith" things?

Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: »

reduces "ethics"

I am not so sure the issue is a "reduction" so much as the thing you see as being "reduced" was elevated without cause in the first place. It is not actually possible to "reduce" something that was entirely artificial and imagined in the first place.

Words like "morality" and "ethics" may not be the lofty things we often pretend as a species they are in the first place. Rather they are simply more collectivist terms for things that humans at more individual levels do all the time: The formation of relationships and the agreement among the people in those relationships on the ground rules they DECIDE to live by.

And pointing out that none of this is "Objective" has never seemed the "gotcha" card the theists in these parts have always liked to pretend. I see no reason why Objective is even a requirement for moral and ethical discussions.

Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: »

Indeed, a belief system which reduces the right of a person to his/her life to such a base position that their life depends on the arbitrary decision of another is undoubtedly backwards, no matter how euphemistically it is dressed up.

Yet it appears to me the only people dressing anything up are you, yourself, and the person in your mirror. Just declaring something "backwards" does not magically make it so. The use of labels does not magically change the attributes of the thing labelled you know.

This has been discussed to death in the abortion thread of course so if anyone feels it is off topic in this thread we can of course go over all the same ground again there. Something makes me suspect you will not be doing that though.

So suffice to say that the near totality of choice based abortion happens in or before week 16 and I am unaware of any grounding philosophically for ascribing a "right to life" at that point. The Anti Abortion groups who tried did so mostly by the misuse of emotive words, and the occasional off topic obsession with photos of the fetus and discussions of what their tongue movements look like or.... strangely.... reading bits of my own posts from over 10 years ago back at me (that was a strange one).

So no, the belief system is not "reducing the right to live" at all. Rather it is pointing out that the assumption there even was such a right in play in the first place was just that. An Assumption. And one with no coherent grounding I have yet been made aware of. And I have asked. A lot. So forgive me if I repeat the question you already ignored once in another thread: But would I be wasting my time assuming you might be the first to put one forward?

I think I would be more inclined towards belief systems based on selecting a more coherent grounding.... such as the faculty of sentience.... for hanging philosophical concepts like "rights" off. Let alone the "right to life" specifically. A faculty that is not just slightly.... but entirely..... absent from a fetus at the gestation cutoffs most choice based abortion occurs at.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I asked in another post, but was entirely ignored by you, whether you would be different to any other theists who come into this forum in that you could substantiate the existence of a god. Or would I be wasting both of our time by asking.

I would repeat that question here only slightly altered. Why would we want a belief system that "recognises" something no one seemingly has ANY modicum of evidence even exists? Perhaps you should move to substantiate the existence of an "Objective" or "natural" morality or law here before any of us should consider a belief system which recognises it and incorporates it?

Do you have any such arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest the existence of any such thing? Or would this be another one of those nebulous "faith" things?

I am not so sure the issue is a "reduction" so much as the thing you see as being "reduced" was elevated without cause in the first place. It is not actually possible to "reduce" something that was entirely artificial and imagined in the first place.

Words like "morality" and "ethics" may not be the lofty things we often pretend as a species they are in the first place. Rather they are simply more collectivist terms for things that humans at more individual levels do all the time: The formation of relationships and the agreement among the people in those relationships on the ground rules they DECIDE to live by.

And pointing out that none of this is "Objective" has never seemed the "gotcha" card the theists in these parts have always liked to pretend. I see no reason why Objective is even a requirement for moral and ethical discussions.

Yet it appears to me the only people dressing anything up are you, yourself, and the person in your mirror. Just declaring something "backwards" does not magically make it so. The use of labels does not magically change the attributes of the thing labelled you know.

This has been discussed to death in the abortion thread of course so if anyone feels it is off topic in this thread we can of course go over all the same ground again there. Something makes me suspect you will not be doing that though.

So suffice to say that the near totality of choice based abortion happens in or before week 16 and I am unaware of any grounding philosophically for ascribing a "right to life" at that point. The Anti Abortion groups who tried did so mostly by the misuse of emotive words, and the occasional off topic obsession with photos of the fetus and discussions of what their tongue movements look like or.... strangely.... reading bits of my own posts from over 10 years ago back at me (that was a strange one).

So no, the belief system is not "reducing the right to live" at all. Rather it is pointing out that the assumption there even was such a right in play in the first place was just that. An Assumption. And one with no coherent grounding I have yet been made aware of. And I have asked. A lot. So forgive me if I repeat the question you already ignored once in another thread: But would I be wasting my time assuming you might be the first to put one forward?

I think I would be more inclined towards belief systems based on selecting a more coherent grounding.... such as the faculty of sentience.... for hanging philosophical concepts like "rights" off. Let alone the "right to life" specifically. A faculty that is not just slightly.... but entirely..... absent from a fetus at the gestation cutoffs most choice based abortion occurs at.

What thread are you on about? I'm sorry if you feel ignored, but I am flattered you so desire my attention that you follow me to different threads to (seemingly?) repeat yourself. But really, my attention is not worth all that

You might occupy a position that holds that there is no objective basis for morality or ethics, or that the concept of natural law is nonsense. Good for you. But it really is a position of moral bankruptcy, because you have no basis to say that an act, omission or whatever is wrong, was wrong, and will always be wrong and as such, there cannot be such things as universal human rights. Perhaps the best you can do is base any idea of "rights" on majority opinion, which is problematic in a number of ways. Firstly, we have umpteen examples where majorities in a society have supported and carried out acts which we would object to. Secondly, with no objective basis (claimed or otherwise) from which to draw legitimacy for the imposition of any "rights" which you may support, the only basis from which legitimacy can be claimed to be drawn from is ultimately that of force - tyranny in other words. You have no other basis upon which to claim that others should comply with or respect any rights or laws. (Although to be totally fair to you, it is admirable that you have not tried, as some do, to argue that natural law or objective morality can exist without a deity. Such an argument, as you know, doesn't add up).

As for the existence of God, this is amusing. You are asking for scientific evidence for the existence of something which by definition is not a mere being within the universe, rather something that by definition exists outside of it (and time and space), and hence rather difficult to demonstrate with science

Of course, there are a number of reason and logic based arguments for God, from Aquinas five ways, to the cosmological/contingency/ontological arguments. Taken together, I found that they offer enough of a basis to conclude logically that God may 'exist', that it is not an impossibility and is an option worth exploring. It is from here, through the doors that reason and logic have opened a crack, that grace can enter and through an exploration of this and engagement with prayer and the sacraments that faith and a personal relationship with God can form (which is where, as they say, the meat of the matter is). But this is just me (and umpteen millions throughout the world and history) you are under no obligation to believe, it is your choice, and I am not inclined to try and convert anyone here (I would not claim so lofty a goal as to why I post, rather it is for my mere amusement and diversion, as it is for most I would say), they can read better people than me and make up their own mind (and on other threads).

With regard to right and wrong, I would argue that there are things which we as humans naturally believe are just or evil and there is a "natural" law which subsequent man made laws must satisfy and be based on in order for them to have any legitimacy. This has basically been (I'm being succinct) the basis of the west's legal system for hundreds of years. The idea that man enjoyed rights merely because he was a man (made in the image and likeness of God) very much was a revolutionary and progressive idea, streets ahead from that which went before. If you want to abandon this concept (of course it was not always lived up to) you should be very careful as to what will come to replace it. It would seem to me, that any regression from this idea to one where someone has rights merely because society "agrees" they do (until they no longer agree of course) is most regressive, and not at all a positive development.

To return to the topic at hand, it is the likes of the above, natural law, human rights and such that the Sisters need to consider prior to the alienation of any land. Of course, this is not to say that they are all-knowing or all-superior in this regard, we can see how mans understanding of natural law is an evolution with plenty of hiccups along the way.

nozzferrahhtoo

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

You might occupy a position that holds that there is no objective basis for morality or ethics, or that the concept of natural law is nonsense.

I "might", but it "might" be better to ask me what my position actually are rather than guess them vicariously on my behalf. It is not that I hold a position there is no god or objective morality. Rather I hold the position that until I am shown the first shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that such things do exist I proceed without those assumptions.

Without any reason to think there is a god, or an objective morality, there is no reason for me to act like they exist either. Simple as that. Holding a position they do NOT exist is not required or necessary in much the same way I do not need to hold the belief my bedroom is free of murders before I go in to sleep there.

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

Good for you. But it really is a position of moral bankruptcy, because you have no basis to say that an act, omission or whatever is wrong, was wrong, and will always be wrong and as such, there cannot be such things as universal human rights.

This is a very poor instance of an argument from implication from you. Arguments from implication usually take the form of "If this thing I claim exists, does not exist, then the implication is one I find unpleasant" and are basically just a subset of "Arguments from emotion". This is fallacy therefore.

In this case you are moaning about the implications of there being no objective morality, and no unmovable basis therefore for concepts such as "right" and "wrong".

So the hell what? The universe does not owe you any such thing. And point out what you do above is not even remotely substantiation that such things actually exist. At best it is just showing why you are emotionally biased towards WANTING such things to exist. But wanting something to be true does not appear to actually make things become true.

So pointing out other systems are "problematic" is entirely irrelevant to what I asked you. I asked you if you could substantiate the existence of an objective morality. Instead of doing this you retreated behind an off topic tangent about the problems you imagine exist in other systems. Which makes as much sense as going into a murder trial and when asked to prove the guilt of the accused.... you go on a rant about how damaging to society theft is.... while failing to mention the accused, or the case against the accused, at all.

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

As for the existence of God, this is amusing. You are asking for scientific evidence for the existence of something

Errrr no I did not. And since I clearly have enough words in my own mouth I would therefore appreciate it very much if you drop the attempt to put yours in there too. Please stick to replying to things I actually said only, and not what you imagine I have said / want me to have said / feel beneficial to pretend I have said.

In fact in neither of my posts.... this one above or the one you ignored on the other thread.... did I even once use the word science at all. I know this even without going back to check because in fact the removal of the word science from my challenge against theists was something I did 10 years ago for very contrived and deeply thought out reasons.

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

Of course, there are a number of reason and logic based arguments for God

Feel free to present and discuss some then rather than just name dropping them. If I wanted someone elses arguments, I would but their books (you can assume in fact I already have). I was not asking them. I was asking you.

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

God may 'exist'

Anything "may" exist. From the plethora of things human beings have imagined, to the probably infinite number of things no one has yet imagined. "May" exist is meaningless. I have never once questions the concept that a god "may" exist. Or that an objective morality "may" exist.

The question I ask time and time again is whether we have any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to suggest these things DO exist. The answer to this has been a consistent "No" in my personal experience so far. And your post here has not moved that dial one iota.

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

But this is just me (and umpteen millions throughout the world and history) you are under no obligation to believe, it is your choice

Why do theists always LEAD in their first post with the "Argumentum Ad Populum" fallacy? The number of people who have subscribed to unsubstantiated nonsense does not stop it being unsubstantiated nonsense. It is just irrelevant filler.

However you make another error here which I have had to counter in nearly every conversation with theists over the decades. Which is this assumption that I have a "choice" in the matter.

Perhaps your credulity is so labile that you can "Choose" to believe anything you want. (I often wonder how labile it gets in fact. For example if I give you a patently empty box can you actually "Choose" to believe it stuffed with money?). But you would be making a mistake assuming my brain operates like yours.

I can not, and never have been able to, "Choose" what to believe or disbelieve. Rather when I come to believe something I do so because I was compelled by argument, evidence, data and reasoning. When I lack belief in something it is because there was no substantiation there to compel me to belief.

I have no more ability to allocate belief by choice, or withhold it by choice, than I have to choose to fly to the moon entirely without the aid of technology using only my limbs for elevation. It is simply an ability I lack. I will take on face value the claim YOU can do it, if you were to make that claim. But I certainly can't.

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

With regard to right and wrong, I would argue that there are things which we as humans naturally believe are just or evil and there is a "natural" law which subsequent man made laws must satisfy and be based on in order for them to have any legitimacy.

And those beliefs need not be powered by anything objective. Because they are just that. Beliefs. But due to our shared evolutionary heritage we have many "natural" elements which lend towards consensus of those beliefs. Such as the wish to avoid suffering in ourselves and others, due to our own self interests, the actions of mirror neurons, and due to being a species which has survived and excelled against other animals through the power of social cohesion.

These things can motivate consensus but they do not demand it. But as I said before.... the universe does not owe us any such thing in the first place.

Unfortunately the concept of an "Objective" eternal morality is just as bankrupt as you pretend the other systems are. In that without any evidence for this objective morality, or it's content, we only have the word (spoken or written) of other human beings. So whether there is an objective morality or not.......... it becomes irrelevant because it is STILL under the rubric of human subjectivity.

The difference is however that systems based on things we can actually show exist..... are by definition less divisive than things we merely imagine or assume exist. Because discourse, argument, evidence, data and reasoning can be derived from things that exist. Where speaking to a person of faith on an attribute entirely derived of faith... tends to have less room for reaching peaceful consensus.

So the pretence of a moral system you can not substantiate even a TINY bit does not actually give you ANY of the advantages or wins you think it does over any other system. In effect it's the same as any other system.... just wrapped in a venire of pure fantasy.

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

The idea that man enjoyed rights merely because he was a man (made in the image and likeness of God) very much was a revolutionary and progressive idea, streets ahead from that which went before. If you want to abandon this concept (of course it was not always lived up to) you should be very careful as to what will come to replace it. It would seem to me, that any regression from this idea to one where someone has rights merely because society "agrees" they do (until they no longer agree of course) is most regressive, and not at all a positive development.

And yet as I said above, the system you espouse is no different because it STILL requires the same level of agreement. Only more so because not only do you need everyone to agree.... you need them to agree to a reality you have thus far failed not slightly.... but entirely...... to substantiate is actually a reality. Whereas other systems I have heard espoused make less such demands on the credulity of the masses.

But the concept "Man enjoys rights merely because they are man" is not one you even need to ground in a deity. If the concept of morality and ethics exists at all in a universe without a deity.... then they are already grounded in the faculty of consciousness are they not? They do not appear to exist in the trees and the rocks. And you yourself argued above that they cant meaningfully or objectively exist without a deity.

So it actually can lift itself up by it's own bootstraps. The concepts of morality and ethics (which as I said are just fancy words for something quite basic, but make it sound much more lofty than they are) would be inexorably linked to that faculty of consciousness therefore so yes you do get human rights merely because you are human.

But such a system is more flexible than that too. For if we were to meet another sentient alien species tomorrow.... or were we to invent a true Artificial General Intelligence....... their rights and well being would also fall directly under this too. Not so sure how their rights and well being would parse through middle eastern fairly tales from a relatively ignorant bronze aged peasanty.

It does make it hard to see ANY grounding at all for imagining a "right to life" is being removed from aborted fetuses therefore. Which is why I have had absolutely no issue whatsoever in supporting a Pro Choice position on the abortion debate. Nor does it seem you have addressed this in your reply.

[Deleted User]

When I was younger I would sometimes get into "debates" with others about topics that we differed on, intractably. These were rarely productive, and usually became wars of attrition or point scoring. With time, I realised that it was really quite disrespectful of the other, and myself, to try and persuade someone to believe something they had already considered in detail and vehemently dismissed. Who am I, after all, or they for that matter, to believe that there is some grand original argument that has not been heard and would result in a change of heart, particularly in a public setting? A rather arrogant thought, I feel. So if you own all the books, have heard all the arguments, and I have heard all the counter arguments to my arguments, and neither of us has yet to change our minds, then what is the point in heading into the breach once more? What is to be gained?

I am happy to talk to those who have an open mind and are trying to come to know God and are curious, and open to it. Someone who basically says "I have heard it all and have all the books and I don't buy it", what is the point? You are free to have a relationship with God or not. It's a bit sad if you don't want to, or cannot allow yourself to, but that's your business, I respect that. God respects that too, so it is taught, as if you don't want a relationship with God you don't have to, and indeed won't, ever. Why would I bash you over the head with something you have already heard? This is altogether different to a discussion with someone who wants to learn and grow in their own faith, or is confused, or whatever. Theirs is a search for knowledge and help. Yours is a sort of challenge to battle "no one has beat me yet!" you are all but saying. What is the point?

So rather that go over the same ground again, I have learned that it is more useful to rather discuss how I have come to my position, my personal journey, and to hear others personal journey too. This way, even though there is intractable disagreement we at least can understand each other better as people, and how they came to their beliefs.

I have heard all of the atheist arguments before, or all the arguments about what is wrong with the arguments for God if you prefer it put that way, and I have not found them persuasive. My own path to God heavily involved consideration of the arguments I mentioned (why would I lay out these arguments again in detail? You can either read them yourself, or if you know them already my outlining them again is especially redundant) which, through logic and reason, opened my mind to the logical possibility and probability of God (of course, it is not often that a philosophical treatise or logical argument can be evidentially "proven" beyond the argument). Prior to this, I did not think much about God, or atheism or whatever, I just got on with my life. However, following serious engagement with the aforementioned arguments, I then engaged (I will give you the brief version) with religion directly. Why Christianity? Well, logic would seem to demand that if God existed, he would interact with the world in some way. Christ of course did not claim to be a prophet (as many have done before and since) but rather more than that. Why Catholicism? It is the church that Christ set up, and of course it is the most intellectual of the religions where all of these topics have long been deeply considered, reasoned and argued. I have yet to find an issue that is important to me, that has not been long considered by the church, sometimes over a thousand years ago. It is from here that faith and grace play their role and I came to 'know' God. This can only be done (and it is a life long journey) through prayer, engagement with scripture, the Saints and the sacraments. So basically, reason and logic opened my mind to the possibility of God and gave me the freedom to allow myself to seriously and openly engage with religion and God (without feeling silly or holding back), which resulted in the development of faith and resulting in the knowledge of the existence of God, and a relationship with Him. Pope Saint John Paul II's Fides et ratio is good.

As I said in my previous post, I am not here to convert people and my post was made in the context of a different thread. Indeed, if this thread had been set up in other circumstances I would not contribute to it as what is the point? Even the moderator seems exasperated at the idea of the same thing again. But I'd be interested in hearing people's own personal journey's, as that could be interesting, and will certainly be original.

nozzferrahhtoo

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

then what is the point in heading into the breach once more? What is to be gained?

Because I am not arrogant enough to assume I HAVE actually heard "all the arguments". So I continue the conversation(s) on many topics with many people.

Further I have found myself changing minds by presenting the same argument as I always have, but in a different way.... in a different tone.... or with a different "voice". Sometimes hearing the same argument in an individual way can make that argument hit home in a way it never did before.

This is why name dropping arguments is useless to me. But presenting those arguments in your own way might hit home in a way that hearing those arguments in their original form did not. Who knows?

But you ask me "Whats the point"?? I VERY clearly asked you in two points whether I would be wasting my time (and yours) by seeking to ask you to substantiate the things every other theist in this forum has failed to. You seem to have written a very long version of simply saying "Yes, it would be a waste of time, as I am not capable of presenting any such argument either".

I know I have been accused of being verbose on this website in the past

But I have never reached the level of using 500 words where a simple "yes" would suffice

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

I am happy to talk to those who have an open mind

Ah the old "I would discuss this if only you were open minded enough" move. Yea we have had that one tried MULTIPLE times around here before. It falls flat on it's face every time. Justifiably so. Not just on topics of religion but on topics of the supernatural, paranormal, alternative medicines and more. It is a crass move that attempts to put the deficiencies of the snake oil salesman on their mark. Basically an attempt to say "Oh it's not that I absolutely no evidence for the complete tosh I am claiming..... its actually a deficiency on your part really".

Yeah not buying it.

"open minded" does not mean what many people like to pretend it means. Being "Open Minded" merely means being entirely willing to have your position on a matter changed if compelled to by sufficient argument, evidence, data or reasonning. Yet some how the claims about seeking the "open minded" recipient only tend to get made by people presenting ZERO arguments, evidence, data or reasoning.

Quelle Suprise.

As I said I could not possibly BE more open minded. Why? Because as I said..... I have no choice. Argument, evidence, data and reason COMPEL me uncontrollably to belief in claims. If such things are presented coherently, I can not physically or mentally be anything BUT open minded. I will have my mind changed whether I like it or not.

It is the fact this never happens, least of all from you it seems, that maintains my personal status quo on the matter. Nothing to do with me, what I do, do not do, or want.

But I have my answer anyway. Even if it took you 100s of words to give me an answer you could have given me in a single word.

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

Even the moderator seems exasperated at the idea of the same thing again.

The exasperation for me comes from poor or harmful conclusions being reached on a basis that no one has the decency to validate.

Imagine if someone came into a room in our halls of power and demanded certain reforms and laws and policies. And they did so all entirely on the basis of a page of statistics they were waving in everyone's faces.

But the background of the statistics, how they were compiled, what process they were interpreted by and so forth was all hidden. And when asked about them the person not only refused to provide ANY of that.... but started to suggest you be more "open minded" about them or that his "personal journey" makes him have faith the statistics are valid.

That is what it is like when a theist comes into a chat about things like hospital policy or abortion policy throwing around patent nonsense like claiming some individuals "Right to life" is being "removed" and that we should all be worried about where our moral viewpoints are formed from or where they might be going.... as if we have never discussed such things before.

To then be lectured by such theists about concepts of "respect" or that argument or debate or conversation is pointless or even "arrogant" just adds gall to the canard. Discourse is never pointless. It is, in fact, the ONLY tool we have as a species for things like morality, ethics, policy, law, peace, and mutual understanding. If I can be said to "worship" anything in my life.... it is Human Discourse. It is my "religion" if you want. And I can validate it and it's utility a lot more effectively than some fairy tale about an imaginary father figure character.

But my quest and my journey continues. I will happily continue to ask every theist I meet things like "Is there any argument, evidence, data or reasoning you know of which lends even a modicum of credence to the concept that our universe was created and/or is being somehow maintained by a non-human intelligent intentional agent?".

So far the answer is "no". Thank you for your time in giving me another "no" again. I shall waste nor seek no more of it unless you engage again in which case, as my religion of discourse demands, I shall continue too.

smacl

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

When I was younger I would sometimes get into "debates" with others about topics that we differed on, intractably. These were rarely productive, and usually became wars of attrition or point scoring. With time, I realised that it was really quite disrespectful of the other, and myself, to try and persuade someone to believe something they had already considered in detail and vehemently dismissed. Who am I, after all, or they for that matter, to believe that there is some grand original argument that has not been heard and would result in a change of heart, particularly in a public setting? A rather arrogant thought, I feel. So if you own all the books, have heard all the arguments, and I have heard all the counter arguments to my arguments, and neither of us has yet to change our minds, then what is the point in heading into the breach once more? What is to be gained?

Perhaps you could tell us that. After all, here you are on an atheist forum stating that any notion of ethics that runs contrary to your own is morally bankrupt (see below). It would appear that by your own definitions above this stance is both disrespectful and arrogant.

You might occupy a position that holds that there is no objective basis for morality or ethics, or that the concept of natural law is nonsense. Good for you. But it really is a position of moral bankruptcy, because you have no basis to say that an act, omission or whatever is wrong, was wrong, and will always be wrong and as such, there cannot be such things as universal human rights. Perhaps the best you can do is base any idea of "rights" on majority opinion, which is problematic in a number of ways.

[Deleted User]

smacl wrote: »

Perhaps you could tell us that. After all, here you are on an atheist forum stating that any notion of ethics that runs contrary to your own is morally bankrupt (see below). It would appear that by your own definitions above this stance is both disrespectful and arrogant.

Come on now, try reading again there, and taking posts and comments in their totality. I was referring to the particular OP in this instance who was at pains to say that they had "bought all the books" and considered it all before. If someone tells me that, and I tell them how I came to believe what I do, there is really nothing further to add beyond that, in a public forum, that will be a useful exertion of either person's time. That is the context in which I made that comment. This thread has been separated out from a different thread to stand alone as "yet another asking a Theist to prove existence of God thread" - in line with what I have said above, I do not see the point of it, I would not have started such a thread here myself to discuss the existence of God with someone who has already considered it to the extent that it should be taken as granted that he has bought and read all the books and published arguments regarding God that one could care to name.

And no, I did not say that "any" notion of whatever that I do not agree with is morally bankrupt. I said that any notion of morality which does not make claim to an objective basis is morally bankrupt. Many would argue that there is an objective basis for morality, and hence universal human rights and the natural laws from they are derived are correct/exist (that is to say there are some things which are right/wrong always, regardless of majority opinion) but they have nothing to do with God. Many people would agree with me when I say that some things are always wrong, and that even if a group of people (even a majority) came to think that it was not wrong, it would still, in fact, be wrong.

What does interest me is the spiritual aspect at work here, a "compulsion" to have these type of conversations many times, over a decade plus, to desire to hear every argument about the existence of God, multiple times, with different "tones and voices" in the hope of an "aha!" moment is a quite extreme manifestation of the desire and search for God. Man is compelled to search for the ultimate, some get lost looking for this in the world, but of course the ultimate conception of all that we view as good is God. Quite beautiful, and hopeful in a way, that people like the OP put such exertion into their search for God, hope you get there! My advice would be that if consideration of the written word has not got you anywhere, nor has engagement in "debate", then you should stop looking for God through other people, and instead try to engage directly in a more spiritual sense. Indeed by definition it is impossible for man to understand God in His totality, so looking for a written argument as "proof" of the existence of something which man, by definition, cannot fully understand would seem an odd, and somewhat hopeless, way to spend ones time. The most that reason can be expected to do when it comes to something which is beyond the conception and understanding of man is to "point" towards the existence of something that we can call God, Aquinas and others have gone through these arguments and they have been restated many times over the years in various ways, better than I can here.

Reason can open the door to faith, and knowing God. Many have found all the proof they need in this personal relationship. But the two must go together, either of them in isolation is incomplete.

nozzferrahhtoo

As I said I would continue the conversation with you if you did. You appear to have attempted to circumvent that promise my obliquely referring to me in the third person in your post. I still treat that as a continuation of the conversation. So I am happy to continue, though with more decorum than that move displays.

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

Many would argue that there is an objective basis for morality, and hence universal human rights and the natural laws from they are derived are correct/exist

By "argue it" you appear in fact to mean "assert it" because the latter happens a lot. I am not seeing anyone around here doing the former these days, least of all you.

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

it should be taken as granted that he has bought and read all the books and published arguments regarding God that one could care to name.

Just to be clear, and not for the first time, what you are claiming I have said is markedly different from what I did say. I never said I have read "all the books" on anything at all. To even claim such would be pretty dumb. How could I even know if I had?

What I actually said was "If I wanted someone elses arguments, I would but their books (you can assume in fact I already have). I was not asking them. I was asking you." which I said in the direct context of you name dropping Aquinas and his arguments (plagarized somewhat heavily later by william craig lane in his rote speech he presented in every stage debate).

The meaning here is that if you want to name drop Aquinas at me rather than present or detail any arguments yourself.... you can assume I have already ready Aquinas on the matter. Not that I have read EVERYONE and EVERYTHING on the matter.

Hope that clarifies.

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

I said that any notion of morality which does not make claim to an objective basis is morally bankrupt.

You SAID it alright. But again this is more assertion and not actually something you have argued for, supported, or substantiated in any way.

Nor, I note, did you in any way address or rebut my counters to that assertion. Up to and including the fact that even if there was an objective morality it would not change at all the subjectivity of actual human moral systems. Because at best any assertion to a moral position off the back of that mystical morality would be a guess, and at worst entirely contrived.

So what we appear to be left with is that all humans are making subjective moral claims, but only some of them are imaginging they have some objective basis for them. And asserting such a basis based on nothing makes it no more (or less, in fairness) "bankrupt" than any other.

Put another way, we ALL seemingly have our moral opinions. Only some of us are vicariously claiming they are rubber stamped by an invisible friend.

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

Many people would agree with me when I say

Argumentum Ad populum AGAIN? Really? It failed and was called out the first time. Why try and pull that one again? No one here buys it to my knowledge.

You are making assertions without evidence. You are then trying to bolster that by making the assertion vicariously through some imaged "many" people sharing agreement with you.

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

What does interest me is the spiritual aspect at work here, a "compulsion"

Oh look, making it about me and not the topic again. Wonderful.

But I would move to prevent any over-statement of the "compulsion" here. It is not somehow unique to religion or god(s). My "compulsion" is towards discourse. And I periodically revisit MANY MANY topics in my life in the same way to see if further discourse refines or even overhauls the beliefs I hold.

You personally only see me doing that right now with ONE topic. The plural of anecdote is not evidence you know.

I do this because I know I am wrong about something. We likely all are. And it is through being open minded and willing to engage in discourse and consider new evidence and arguments that we are most likely to find out where.

The topic of god and religion is only one in 100s to get this treatment from me therefore.

So extrapolating from it some inbuilt human concept of compulsion to seek out some god..... is at best a stretch and at worst a total canard.

But I have no hope to find a god. I also have no hope that I continue to find no god or evidence for a god. The only thing that interests me is the never ending pursuit to find out what is actually true in our world. And ongoing discourse is the tool I use most to achieve that, in all areas of my life, knowledge, and beliefs.

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

so looking for a written argument as "proof" of the existence of something

They do you use the word "proof" when I never have I wonder? I would never, and have never, sought anything so lofty from you. Let me repeat EXACTLY one of my many questions again as it is one that I spent a lot of time forming in the past and it has served me well many times since and every word in it is chosen for considered reasons:

"Is there any argument, evidence, data or reasoning you know of which lends even a modicum of credence to the concept that our universe was created and/or is being somehow maintained by a non-human intelligent intentional agent?"

Where in that have I asked for "proof"? Where in that also have I mentioned "science" since you claimed I did, and then once corrected on putting words in my mouth you did not have the decency to retract the claim?

Does it ever occur to you that discourse with another human being might be facilitated by listening to, and responding to, only the things they ACTUALLY have said?? Novel concept maybe?

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

The most that reason can be expected to do when it comes to something which is beyond the conception and understanding of man is to "point" towards the existence of something that we can call God

Then you render the word "god" meaningless in that regard. Or, to be more accurate..... you functionally cause the word "god" to be nothing but a placeholder for human ignorance.

Which is fine with me, but why use the word "god" at all in that case given all the metaphysical baggage and patent nonsense such a word comes with?

I am not aware that anything actually IS know to be "beyond the understanding of man". For I do not see the future. There are things we do not understand NOW, but that does not mean we never will.

And generally any speaker in the past who has made assertions about the limits of human knowledge has been left embarrassed when human knowledge met or exceeded that assertion.

So all I can say about mankind for now is there are many things we currently remain ignorant of. I see no reason to call that area of ignorance "god". Much less to assume that this god is then an intentional intelligent agent who visits us by given birth to himself via cajoling with fear and awe underage virgin girls to "consent" to pregnancy.... all in order to give a "sacrifice" that was not AT ALL a "sacrifice" and is in fact a story that makes a mockery and an insult to anyone who genuinely has made a sacrifice in our world.

You call one particular religion logical (without showing the logic, just once again asserting it is there) but the entire tale drips with illogic, insult, and the demeaning of many concepts I would hold dear, such as genuine human sacrifice.

[Deleted User]

I find your approach interesting. Some questions. Why do you think you feel a compulsion to constantly reexamine your beliefs? Why are you compelled to pursue the "truth"? Why does it matter for you? Can you ever actually close your hand upon and grasp truth if you are compelled to examine and reexamine everything? Can anything be "true" for you, if so how? What is your basis for believing something to be true? You say that you hold "genuine human sacrifice" dear, why? What, for you, defines "genuine" human sacrifice?

nozzferrahhtoo

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

I find your approach interesting. Some questions. Why do you think you feel a compulsion to constantly reexamine your beliefs? Why are you compelled to pursue the "truth"? Why does it matter for you?

We are heading a little further down the road of pushing the thread and topic to be about me instead of what it started being about. That is fine with me, I enjoy talking about myself as much as the next man so I am happy to go with it

But I would like to express my suspicion that it is actually a cop out dodge rather than genuine interest in me. But I will pocket that suspicion as not well substantiated, and operate under the latter assumption anyway.

The answer is disappointing. I just find learning what is true to be interesting. And I do not particularly LIKE being wrong. But since I do not think myself perfect, I operate under the assumption I am wrong.... about something. So I would genuinely like to find out what and why.

I guess it is the same feeling that motivates scientists or detectives or journalists. They genuinely enjoy finding out what actually is true.

Some people are motivated to believe things are true that they WANT to be true. For example the only evidence for an objective morality you even attempted to discuss, was actually evidence of why you might be biased towards accepting that truth... and was not at all evidence FOR that truth.

But the genuinely good scientists and detectives and journalists do not actually care what is true. They just want to know what IS true in any given context.... regardless of what that truth turns out to be.

So asking me what I am interested in truth is a bit like asking a painter why they want to paint, or asking a singer why they need to sing, or asking a toddler why they need to play. It is just the character I was born with, it would seem.

But I am sure there is some evolutionary basis behind it too. After all the more divorced from truth an entity is, the less likely they are to survive. As someone standing before a lion believing it does not eat humans, or steps off a building in the belief they can fly without the aid of technology..... would attest to were they generally surviving the experience

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

Can you ever actually close your hand upon and grasp truth if you are compelled to examine and reexamine everything? Can anything be "true" for you, if so how?

You make it sound so black and white and final. To steal a phrase back from one of my favorite posters on boards "The journey is the Destination". I do not see the pursuit of truth as a destination in any final way. I see it as one single journey.

But I do not so much believe things as "true" or "false" in my brain. Black or White. 0 or 1. Rather I am somewhat prone to continuum thinking. In that I place any claim at the zero middle point of a continuum and move it up and down along that line in relation to the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning presented to me.

And if a claim moves far enough in the positive direction then I FUNTIONALLY act as if it is true. I do not need to parse that in terms of "belief" therefore. Rather mere functionality. I seek to function under the rubric of the claims that seem most likely to be true (due to their substantiation) and simply operate without the unsubstantiated notion permeating our discourse (such as your concepts of a god, your concept of an objective morality, or your concept that a bunch of cells has a right to life).

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

You say that you hold "genuine human sacrifice" dear, why? What, for you, defines "genuine" human sacrifice?

I would say that a "genuine" sacrifice is one where a person gives for another person, a place, or an ideal with genuine expectation of loss and little expectation of personal gain solely for themselves.

So a parent throwing themselves in front of a bullet would likely be a genuine sacrifice (though of course we need the full context and story to judge any individual example, I am speaking generally here).

In contrast to that, lets take the Nazarene Fairy Tale. In this tale we are asked to take the death of this individual as a sacrifice and we are told things like "God gave us his only son" and so on and so forth.

Yet the reality claimed within the same tale is that said son now sits in a state of eternal bliss and dominion and his fathers right hand? That somewhat suggests the "Sacrifice" was at best a "Trading up" and the "gift" of a son.... especially in the face of eternity.... was at best an infinitesimally small lending.

Which is somewhat insulting to the concept of genuine human sacrifice, genuine human grief, and a mocking insult to the pain of genuine parents who genuinely did lose a child to death.

In fact since you claimed "logic" within the structures of Christianity and Catholicism I would suggest to you that due to what I call the "Jarvis Cocker Effect" in deference to the song "Common People"..... logically this god entity is quite limited in that unlike human's it could not experience true grief or make a true sacrifice. Because like the Rich Girl in "Common People".... the moment the pain gets too much it can be removed and undone and reversed.

"still you'll never get it right
'Cause when you're laid in bed at night
Watching roaches climb the wall
If you called your dad he could stop it all, yeah"

Different Class - Song3:Verse5 (see I can quote scripture as well

)

A god that can never experience or genuinely understand even some of the most basic attributes of being human does not sound all that supreme to me, much less worthy of reverence, awe or worship. Were you to have presented even the first modicum of credence that it even exists in the first place.

[Deleted User]

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We are heading a little further down the road of pushing the thread and topic to be about me instead of what it started being about. That is fine with me, I enjoy talking about myself as much as the next man so I am happy to go with it But I would like to express my suspicion that it is actually a cop out dodge rather than genuine interest in me. But I will pocket that suspicion as not well substantiated, and operate under the latter assumption anyway.

No dodge, I would just find this avenue more interesting because the likelihood of hearing something new or unique is far greater.

The answer is disappointing. I just find learning what is true to be interesting. And I do not particularly LIKE being wrong. But since I do not think myself perfect, I operate under the assumption I am wrong.... about something. So I would genuinely like to find out what and why.

I guess it is the same feeling that motivates scientists or detectives or journalists. They genuinely enjoy finding out what actually is true.

I tend to find "I just am/it just is" explanations rather unsatisfactory. There is an explanation for everything, I believe. Including why you find pursuit of "truth" interesting. Is the "point" just because you find it fun? Or is there something more there? I suspect there may be, because the pursuit of something just for the sake of enjoyment is rather hollow, because if pursuit of enjoyment, and pleasure, is to be the motivating factor this can be achieved in innumerable other and better ways (probably quicker and easier too).

Some people are motivated to believe things are true that they WANT to be true. For example the only evidence for an objective morality you even attempted to discuss, was actually evidence of why you might be biased towards accepting that truth... and was not at all evidence FOR that truth.

But, if people do not "choose" to believe can motivation be a deciding factor here? I might want something to be true, and be delighted that it turns out to be so (or indeed, I may want something to NOT be true) but can an emotional state be the root cause of belief, can it taint a belief to such a state that it is compromised? And if so, can we, as emotional being, be sure of anything?

But the genuinely good scientists and detectives and journalists do not actually care what is true. They just want to know what IS true in any given context.... regardless of what that truth turns out to be.

But they care that there is truth, and that there is some point to pursuing it. An investigation is not something undertaken for the enjoyment of the pursuit, but to arrive at a definitive end.

So asking me what I am interested in truth is a bit like asking a painter why they want to paint, or asking a singer why they need to sing, or asking a toddler why they need to play. It is just the character I was born with, it would seem.

But I am sure there is some evolutionary basis behind it too. After all the more divorced from truth an entity is, the less likely they are to survive. As someone standing before a lion believing it does not eat humans, or steps off a building in the belief they can fly without the aid of technology..... would attest to were they generally surviving the experience

But there is a difference between ascertaining scientific truth or material reality, and establishing the "truth" of a philosophical treatise. If your compulsion is understood as one which is socially constructed, should we not seek to deconstruct this and subject it to rational examination? If your pursuit of "truth" is because of some socially constructed impulse, which can never be wholly satisfied and is not necessary (surely your survival is not necessary, nor is that of humanity) is it rational to pursue it at all? Why?

You make it sound so black and white and final. To steal a phrase back from one of my favorite posters on boards "The journey is the Destination". I do not see the pursuit of truth as a destination in any final way. I see it as one single journey.

But I do not so much believe things as "true" or "false" in my brain. Black or White. 0 or 1. Rather I am somewhat prone to continuum thinking. In that I place any claim at the zero middle point of a continuum and move it up and down along that line in relation to the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning presented to me.

And if a claim moves far enough in the positive direction then I FUNTIONALLY act as if it is true. I do not need to parse that in terms of "belief" therefore. Rather mere functionality. I seek to function under the rubric of the claims that seem most likely to be true (due to their substantiation) and simply operate without the unsubstantiated notion permeating our discourse (such as your concepts of a god, your concept of an objective morality, or your concept that a bunch of cells has a right to life).

Am I wrong to view the above as an effective statement that there is no such thing as definitive truth, at least for you, or any man, as it is impossible to be sure? Why does such an approach, where everything has the possibility of shifting, of ticking nearer to or further from "truth" but never quite getting there, not leave you, functionally, in a state of paralysis? How do you act when something is at "zero"?

Given that you do not, and cannot know everything that man may come to know throughout mans existence, it is a complete impossibility (given your continuum) that you could ever arrive at a position where you are sure that something is true. You can only think that something is, based on available information, more likely true than not. Why is that good enough, for you, to functionally act as if it were true? This may involve extremely serious actions/omissions that could have serious implications on others and the world.

Why is it important or necessary or desirable in your view (or is it?) to act according to "truth"? You could think that something is 9/10 on the "is true" scale, yet totally disregard it and act as if it were not. Would this be wrong? Why? It must matter surely, otherwise why bother? And if there is nothing higher than mere material reality why should you try and act in accordance with just what happens to be "true"? Why (if you do) place that limitation on yourself?

I would say that a "genuine" sacrifice is one where a person gives for another person, a place, or an ideal with genuine expectation of loss and little expectation of personal gain solely for themselves.

So a parent throwing themselves in front of a bullet would likely be a genuine sacrifice (though of course we need the full context and story to judge any individual example, I am speaking generally here).

In contrast to that, lets take the Nazarene Fairy Tale. In this tale we are asked to take the death of this individual as a sacrifice and we are told things like "God gave us his only son" and so on and so forth.

Yet the reality claimed within the same tale is that said son now sits in a state of eternal bliss and dominion and his fathers right hand? That somewhat suggests the "Sacrifice" was at best a "Trading up" and the "gift" of a son.... especially in the face of eternity.... was at best an infinitesimally small lending.

In your example, if the parent was a christian in a state of grace and knew that things get better after their death, is that not a sacrifice?

As for sacrifice, "genuine expectation of loss and little expectation of personal gain solely for themselves." What is meant by loss? It need not be death, it could be expectation of pain and suffering. So, a parent could protect a young child from a dangerous dog. They might not expect to die, but can reasonable expect it to hurt a lot. They would certainly expect a gain compared to if they did nothing, in that their child will not be killed. I would view this as an example of genuine sacrifice. Or, for example, the donation of a kidney to someone else. I do not expect to die, but would certain expect loss (my kidney) and would also "gain" both from the satisfaction of saving someones life, and if they were a loved one, continued enjoyment of their company.

We are rather told, that God, given the trinitarian nature of God, offered himself as a sacrifice, to himself, because, well, nothing else is really 'worth' anything to something that is not a being, but rather is being. What else, in a created universe, could conceivable serve as a more meaningful sacrifice? There is no personal gain here at all for God.

As God became man He would certainly expect (and would) to suffer as man did, both physically and emotionally. The fact that He knew it would "work out" in the end does not mean it is not a sacrifice. Especially when the whole point of it is so that it would "end well" for humanity.

Which is somewhat insulting to the concept of genuine human sacrifice, genuine human grief, and a mocking insult to the pain of genuine parents who genuinely did lose a child to death.

I don't agree here at all and I am puzzled as to how you can. But I must ask, on what basis, for you, is sacrifice admirable? People generally think it is, why do you think it? Why is grief even worth any consideration?

In fact since you claimed "logic" within the structures of Christianity and Catholicism I would suggest to you that due to what I call the "Jarvis Cocker Effect" in deference to the song "Common People"..... logically this god entity is quite limited in that unlike human's it could not experience true grief or make a true sacrifice. Because like the Rich Girl in "Common People".... the moment the pain gets too much it can be removed and undone and reversed.

If God becomes man, of course he can experience human suffering, the same as we can, why couldn't he? I can know that death is not the end, but does that render my suffering null? If someone willingly goes through suffering and makes great sacrifice, that they could stop at any time, the fact that they do not and instead consciously decide to suffer for the sake of another is what makes it a sacrifice. If there is no choice, how can it be a sacrifice? If a "rich girl" chooses to live and suffer in deprivation in order to help others, this is a sacrifice. Because it is a choice. It could be ended with a phone call, but the fact that she does not end it and stays to help, is what makes it so remarkable and worthy.

"still you'll never get it right
'Cause when you're laid in bed at night
Watching roaches climb the wall
If you called your dad he could stop it all, yeah"

Different Class - Song3:Verse5 (see I can quote scripture as well )

William Shatner said it better :P

A god that can never experience or genuinely understand even some of the most basic attributes of being human does not sound all that supreme to me, much less worthy of reverence, awe or worship. Were you to have presented even the first modicum of credence that it even exists in the first place.

How can you say that God "cannot understand or experience" something? Given the nature of God, if it lacked understanding of anything, it would not be God. If it could not, if he so wished, become "fully human and fully God" he would not be God as he would not have the required characteristics.

I have found that often people struggling with the concept of God have a conception of God which is contrary to what is actually taught. If by God you mean a super being within the universe looking down on us doing this and that, well I'm not surprised you don't believe in that God, because I don't either. You are quite right, such a being would not be worth any worship, because it cannot be God.

[Deleted User]

Conscious there's a lot there, but just to say, given that you say (I see no reason to not believe you) you take this stuff very seriously and consciously think about these things (as do I) this is a welcome opportunity for discussion. Most people generally don't (better things to do I'm sure!) but rather subconsciously adhere to the general zeitgeist of the age, and, of course, I would suggest, the laws of God written on our hearts, and the two often conflict.

nozzferrahhtoo

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

I suspect there may be, because the pursuit of something just for the sake of enjoyment is rather hollow

To you maybe, but just like your earlier baseless assertion that world views other than your own are "bankrupt" you are just applying your own subjective standards of "hollow" on to others who might not share them. There is no less reason to find meaning in the pursuit of fun than in anything else. Where another person might derive their motivation from is as valid for them as yours is for you. With the difference being of course I can at least substantiate the existence of many of mine. You: Not so much it seems.

But as I did not limit my explanation to "just for fun" the point seems rather irrelevant to make. I gave a few explanations for it. I reckon all of them are in play to some degree. From "fun"........ to a motivation similar to the muse of any artist... to the evolutionary pressure on selecting for organisms that respond more to truth and reality.... and so forth. In essence I do not think there IS any one single answer to your question. Rather, my motivations are one of those "more than the sum of their parts" kind of things.

Not sure what you mean by "better" ways to pursue fun though. Better for who? And what has "quicker and easier" got to do with it? For many people things being quick and easy massively take away from the fun. The people who derive enjoyment from doing something like scaling mount Everst are not likely to put much stock in it being suggested they might find it easier to just walk up a few small hills instead

Much less because it is "quicker and easier". Sometimes "fun" comes from the challenge.

I do not find the pursuit of truth and honesty to be easy at all. In fact I fully expect it to be a journey without destination. The journey IS the destination. And I will likely die having failed at it. I will just have failed less badly than many others

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

But, if people do not "choose" to believe

I have no idea if they do or not. All I can tell you is that it is not a capability I have. I simply do not have whatever switch other people seem to think I have in my brain (you included it seems from an earlier post as you implied it was my choice when it is actually not). I can not simply choose to turn on or off a belief. Belief in that sense just HAPPENS to me. I do not happen to it.

It is OTHER people who can choose to substantiate a claim, or run away from and dodge that challenge. If they do not present compelling evidence for something being likely to be true, or credible as a claim.... then that is their choice. My lack of belief in their unevidenced assertion is their choice, not mine.

But certainly I see suggestions that emotion comes into it for other people. For example when asked to substantiate your claim there is an objective reality you did not even begin to do it. Rather you moaned about your impression of the state of affairs that must exist if your assertions were false. (What you see as a bankrupt moral system without any basis at all, which thankfully is another assertion you have failed to support in any way).

When I see that, it certainly seems like evidence, reason and logic are not components for your chosen belief. Rather it leaves a strong suspicion that you choose the belief because you prefer the implications of it, to the implications of the alternative.

And until I see evidence for the belief, rather that evidence for an emotional bias towards the belief.... then being left with that suspicion is all I can be.

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

But they care that there is truth, and that there is some point to pursuing it. An investigation is not something undertaken for the enjoyment of the pursuit, but to arrive at a definitive end.

The "point" might differ from person to person of course. They each might see a different point for doing so. The "point" for me I think is well encapsulated in the phrase "The Journey is the Destination". That sentence is a lot deeper and more meaningful that an initial reading might suggest. It is a sentence that I have contemplated quite deeply over the years. Something can be it's own "point" for it's own sake. And for ME (I only speak for me) the pursuit of truth is the point in and of itself.

But the point I was making there should not be lost in your tangential point. Which is that I am strongly attracted to people in science, or in journalism, or in law, or in any sphere really who are more interested in finding out what the truth is, than caring about WHAT that truth is. Their motivation is to find it as it is.... not for it to be (or not be) any particular thing. And that is the purity I try to take to every discussion. For example I genuinely do not care if there is a god or not. I would be just as happy either way. But I genuinely DO care about finding arguments and evidence one way or the other.

And that is my motivation on any subject. Not just god and religion.

I reject your second sentence entirely however. I think it can be one or the other or even both, depending on the individual. I see nothing at all suggesting they are in any way mutually exclusive.

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

But there is a difference between ascertaining scientific truth or material reality, and establishing the "truth" of a philosophical treatise.

If you say so. But I hasten to point out that you are the only one who brought science up at all. I never did, despite you inserting those words into my mouth and refusing consistently to retract and apologise for doing so. It is why I have that long contrived sentence in fact. I shall repeat it in full once again:

"Is there any argument, evidence, data or reasoning you know of which lends even a modicum of credence to the concept that our universe was created and/or is being somehow maintained by a non-human intelligent intentional agent?"

There is a lot of purpose and thought behind the wording of that entire sentence. I have been using it pretty much word for word (with slight variation) for years now. And it is precisely BECAUSE I am not limiting the discussion to any one label like "science". Rather it is saying "I have heard your assertion / claim..... now tell me what YOU think lends it credence".

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

Am I wrong to view the above as an effective statement that there is no such thing as definitive truth, at least for you, or any man, as it is impossible to be sure?

I think it more correct to say that my statement is that I do not think I am owed, nor do I ever expect, "definitive truth". But I do not think that means it does not exist, is not possible, or is precluded to us. Rather I feel I should not go around demanding it from anyone as that tends to shut down conversation fast.

So what I tend to do (which again is the contrived wording of my question above) is say "Right lets get this off the ground and see if you can lend your claim / assertion any modicum of credence what so ever.... and we can go from there".

On this topic so far the answer appears to be no. From a long line of which you are only the latest.

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

How do you act when something is at "zero"?

If a claim is at zero I generally act FUNCTIONALLY as if the claim does not exist and was never made to me and I have never heard of it. For example since no one.... least of all you at this point it seems.... has any argument, evidence, data or reasoning that there is a god..... nor for obvious reasons is there such evidence there is NO god (proving a negative and all that)...... then when functioning day to day I do so as if that claim was simply never made to me ever. And my idea of secularism would be a state which basically functions as if such a claim does not exist either. And so on.

There are probably infinite claims and ideas that people simply have not made yet. Simply no one has yet thought of them yet to even make them. Functionally therefore those claims (whatever they may be) are no different to an assertion made not slightly, but ENTIRELY without substance or substantiation.

I do not have to, as you put it "arrive at a position where you are sure that something is true". I am not even sure why one would even imagine it at all. I act at any moment on the basis of what appears MOST LIKELY to be true in a given context. Which is what most people do most of the time. For example an Army General can never be entirely sure of what the exact state of the field is. That does not paralyse his decision. Rather he makes the best choice in any given moment based on the data he has IN that given moment. It may turn out to be the wrong move and lead to failure. But he can not be faulted for that if it was a decision that was right in light of the evidence in play.

How is what I do / think any different?

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

Why is that good enough, for you, to functionally act as if it were true? This may involve extremely serious actions/omissions that could have serious implications on others and the world.

That only makes sense if it was the one and ONLY evidence devoid claim in play. Alas the world is replete with claims that lack any evidence at all. So if I was to functionally act as if ONE was true.... I would therefore have to have the intellectual honest to functionally act as if they were ALL true. Otherwise I would have to select them as arbitrarily as you appear to.

You are erring slightly into the territory of Pascals Wager really. A wager many atheists torpedo by simply asking the theist in question "Which god?".

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

In your example, if the parent was a christian in a state of grace and knew that things get better after their death, is that not a sacrifice?

If I made the actions of giving my life away, but I fully and wholly expected to get an eternal life after it, then no I would not see that as a sacrifice at all. There is a story in the Bible is there not about a rich man who gives a lot of money, and a homeless poor man who gives a tiny bit. And the moral of the story was about how the homeless man actually was giving more.... because he has MUCH less to give.

My point is mostly the same. If I was giving a small bit of an otherwise infinite resource...... I would be less inclined to see it as a sacrifice than someone who was giving their life firm in the belief they were giving everything they have.

Which is why the Jesus story is such an insult to many parents who have actually lost a child. To act like a god who has his child beside him in an eternal state of bliss and dominion sacrificed anything, or "gave" anything..... is worse than a joke. It is an insult to our intellects.

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

We are rather told, that God, given the trinitarian nature of God, offered himself as a sacrifice, to himself, because, well, nothing else is really 'worth' anything to something that is not a being, but rather is being. What else, in a created universe, could conceivable serve as a more meaningful sacrifice? There is no personal gain here at all for God.

Meaningless word salad from you there. What was sacrificed? The god in question still has everything it had before the alleged sacrifice. It gave nothing, lost nothing, suffered nothing. I see no sacrifice there. The story is not one of self sacrifice, but one of self-aggrandizement at best.

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

I must ask, on what basis, for you, is sacrifice admirable?

The point I am making is not about what makes it admirable. But what actively does the opposite. And a story where the conversation is essentially "I gave my only son to die" "Oh I am sorry for your loss!" "Loss? No he is right here beside me, for all eternity, in a mutual state of bliss and dominion" is an example of just that. There is no sacrifice there.

Now what WOULD have made a good story, worth telling, was if this god had sent his only son down to earth and just before his triumphant and eternal return the son opted for an unexpected and irreversible "true death" against his fathers wishes but in a true sacrifice..... that would be a story worth hearing and much less insulting to the concept of actual sacrifice that they usually pedal in our classrooms.

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

If there is no choice, how can it be a sacrifice? If a "rich girl" chooses to live and suffer in deprivation in order to help others, this is a sacrifice. Because it is a choice. It could be ended with a phone call, but the fact that she does not end it and stays to help, is what makes it so remarkable and worthy.

The point there is not about whether it is worthy. But whether the girl in the song could ever truely understand the people she was patronising by emulating. She might CHOOSE to live in poverty superficially, but the fact she could end it at any time means she will never truely and fully understand the state she is emulating. She will never REALLY get it right, as the song says.... because she is only emulating living in a state which the people she is living with are ACTUALLY living.

And that was my point about a god like the Christian one. It can manifest itself with other humans, just like the girl manifested herself in the presence of the poor. But it is no more capable of understanding their predicament, and really being OF it... than she was.

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

Given the nature of God, if it lacked understanding of anything, it would not be God. If it could not, if he so wished, become "fully human and fully God" he would not be God as he would not have the required characteristics.

Exactly my point. It is just one of those inherent contradictions like the old "Can god make a stone so heavy that god can therefore not lift it" or "Can got create a universe that it could not destroy"? More down to earth the speaker Dan Barker in a debate with the unfortunately named Kyle Butt listed a handful of contradictory claims about god in the bible. But you'd have to take them up with him, not me, I mention it only in case you want to go check it out yourself. He is quite approachable in email should you wish to rebut him on the list.

So certainly an all powerful god does not exist by definition. Because such a god could not do something that it could not UNdo. If he can not make it undoable.... then it is not all powerful. If it makes it undoable and can not undo it...... then it is not all powerful. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

But if a god can undo at ANY moment by force of will.... the cause of any grief or loss..... then it can never really understand the human feeling of grief and loss. Because there is hardly a parent alive who has watched a child die.... who would not snap their fingers and bring them back in an instant if they could. A god could. So said god can never really understand the actual human condition in that regard.

And people want us to WORSHIP this limited being? I likely wouldn't even if you did stop dodging the original topic and get around to substantiating it's existence in any way whatsoever. As I noted though you are pushing the thread (intentionally, as I admitted already I suspect) away from that steadily and making it mostly about me.

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

If by God you mean a super being within the universe looking down on us doing this and that, well I'm not surprised you don't believe in that God, because I don't either. You are quite right, such a being would not be worth any worship, because it cannot be God.

I generally do not move to define "god" at all, nor do I hold to any one idea of it. Rather I leave that entirely up to people like you. If someone wants to claim there is a "god" then it is up to that person first and foremost to define what THEY mean by that.... not seek to know what I mean by it.

I mean when scientists discovered the atom for the first time they did not show up saying "Hi everyone, this thing called an atom exists, now tell us what YOU think that means"

No they explained EXACTLY what their claim was and meant, and then presented the evidence for it.

See for me "evidence" is not a thing, it is a process. And the process is a simple one.

1) State clearly what your claim actually is.
2) State clearly the things you think suggest that claim is true.
3) Explain clearly how the things listed in step 2 support the claim made in step 1.

My general experience with theists (general speaking, not singling out any one theist here) has been that they are very vague in step 1.... they are happy to arbitrarily list things in step 2.... and they generally avoid step 3 entirely.

[Deleted User]

Interesting. I cannot take the time to respond properly today, but in the meantime you might go back and address some of the outstanding points, for instance:

If your compulsion is understood as one which is socially constructed, should we not seek to deconstruct this and subject it to rational examination? If your pursuit of "truth" is because of some socially constructed impulse, which can never be wholly satisfied and is not necessary (surely your survival is not necessary, nor is that of humanity) is it rational to pursue it at all? Why?

Why is it important or necessary or desirable in your view (or is it?) to act according to "truth"? You could think that something is 9/10 on the "is true" scale, yet totally disregard it and act as if it were not. Would this be wrong? Why? It must matter surely, otherwise why bother? And if there is nothing higher than mere material reality why should you try and act in accordance with just what happens to be "true"? Why (if you do) place that limitation on yourself?

Also, on suffering being a sacrifice.

And to reiterate, I am not interested in presenting you with data, evidence or whatever as to why I believe what I do. I am not interested in trying to persuade you as to the existence of God. I have already explained this to you, why I believe what I do. I am rather more interested in discussing what you do believe, and why. You have, essentially, set out a bit of a treatise on your approach to life and explained that the pursuit of truth is important. I'm interested now in the details of the "why" and the justification of it (to yourself at least).

nozzferrahhtoo

That is rich given you pretty much ignored everything in post #3 by writing a response that had nothing to do with most of it, and responded to almost nothing in it. Then went to to entirely ignore post #5 completely. And then you went back to the same approach you used on post #3 with post #8 by writing a tiny response that addressed pretty much nothing at all which I said.

And now that you are showing the same signs of doing with post #13 when you did with #3 and #8, you have the gall to cherry pick out two minor things and suggest they are "outstanding". Which is further made galling by the fact that these "points" were already addressed in much of what you have thus far ignored and dodged in the posts before.

And all of that on a thread where you are pushing to make it all about me, while dodging and ignoring the ACTUAL original topic(s) of the thread.

You are not engaging in this conversation in good faith AT ALL are you? The original question that you ignored on another thread about the existence of god.... and are now ignoring on this thread about the existence of an objective morality........ was simple. Which is that given my experience with theists has been that 100% of them have not even got the first SHRED of evidence for these claims.... would I be wasting your time, and mine, by asking you if you were any different.

I have my answer. You are no different. And your last paragraph is the answer to that directly. Unless you want to start engaging in good faith and with some level of decorum therefore.... I am done here. If this is Christian morality in play, I want none of it.

smacl

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

And no, I did not say that "any" notion of whatever that I do not agree with is morally bankrupt. I said that any notion of morality which does not make claim to an objective basis is morally bankrupt. Many would argue that there is an objective basis for morality, and hence universal human rights and the natural laws from they are derived are correct/exist (that is to say there are some things which are right/wrong always, regardless of majority opinion) but they have nothing to do with God. Many people would agree with me when I say that some things are always wrong, and that even if a group of people (even a majority) came to think that it was not wrong, it would still, in fact, be wrong.

For the record, I'm of the opinion that any system of morality where people's good behaviour is dependant on the oversight and threat of repercussions from an imagined deity to be an utter sham. Any reasonable system or morality is free from threat of punishment for bad behaviour or promise of reward for good behaviour. We are not donkeys being controlled by a carrot and stick. I also firmly believe that we arrive at what is moral or immoral based on collective understanding and this understanding is continuously refined over time. This is also the same process by which we arrive at universal human rights. Morality cannot be dictated by one small part of society, e.g. a church hierarchy, to be imposed on the whole. It derives from the experience, understanding and often conflicting views coming from all parts of a pluralist society.

[Deleted User]

smacl wrote: »

For the record, I'm of the opinion that any system of morality where people's good behaviour is dependant on the oversight and threat of repercussions from an imagined deity to be an utter sham. Any reasonable system or morality is free from threat of punishment for bad behaviour or promise of reward for good behaviour. We are not donkeys being controlled by a carrot and stick. I also firmly believe that we arrive at what is moral or immoral based on collective understanding and this understanding is continuously refined over time. This is also the same process by which we arrive at universal human rights. Morality cannot be dictated by one small part of society, e.g. a church hierarchy, to be imposed on the whole. It derives from the experience, understanding and often conflicting views coming from all parts of a pluralist society.

Who is signed up to a system of morality as you describe? The Christian position is that there are natural laws which man can innately know (whether or not they are a Christian) and our understanding, and the implications of these natural laws, can and must be refined. Following these laws is the right thing to do because they are good, and we will be happiest if we follow them. If we don't follow them, we will be miserable and things will not go well. Not because someone will blow us up with lightening, but because we are acting in a manner contrary to our being. Doing the right thing, in other words, is good for us. Of course, justice is a necessary part of any moral and ethical system, would it be "good" if there was no justice for the wronged? Our legal system would be worth nothing if those who consciously decide to do what they know is wrong are not subject to justice. But do the mentally competent avoid committing horrendous crimes such as murder (or whatever) merely because they might get in trouble? Or get a medal if they don't? Of course not, we don't do these things because they are morally repugnant, they are simply "wrong" regardless of any positive law or carrot or stick.

You say that we arrive at what is moral or not via refined collective understanding. I agree with this, although obviously we can get things wrong. But implicit in your proposition is that there is something there to uncover and to understand. That there is a "right" way to go about things. On what basis do you believe that these universal rights and such, are "right"?

Tell me this, do you think that something, anything, was, is, and will always be wrong? If so/if not, why?

[Deleted User]

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is rich given you pretty much ignored everything in post #3 by writing a response that had nothing to do with most of it, and responded to almost nothing in it. Then went to to entirely ignore post #5 completely. And then you went back to the same approach you used on post #3 with post #8 by writing a tiny response that addressed pretty much nothing at all which I said.

And now that you are showing the same signs of doing with post #13 when you did with #3 and #8, you have the gall to cherry pick out two minor things and suggest they are "outstanding". Which is further made galling by the fact that these "points" were already addressed in much of what you have thus far ignored and dodged in the posts before.

And all of that on a thread where you are pushing to make it all about me, while dodging and ignoring the ACTUAL original topic(s) of the thread.

You are not engaging in this conversation in good faith AT ALL are you? The original question that you ignored on another thread about the existence of god.... and are now ignoring on this thread about the existence of an objective morality........ was simple. Which is that given my experience with theists has been that 100% of them have not even got the first SHRED of evidence for these claims.... would I be wasting your time, and mine, by asking you if you were any different.

I have my answer. You are no different. And your last paragraph is the answer to that directly. Unless you want to start engaging in good faith and with some level of decorum therefore.... I am done here. If this is Christian morality in play, I want none of it.

You are, of course, under no obligation to engage in any discussion with me. I am somewhat of a loss that you can feel slighted at a lack of a response to something which I have already given my response to, and explained that I am not interested in exploring further with you because it would be covering the same ground you have trod before. I'm not interested in persuading you that I am right - I have explained how I have come to my own beliefs and the interaction of reason and faith involved.

I had an interest in subjecting your own philosophy and outlook to a degree of scrutiny in order to understand why and how you live your life. This would be rather more interesting, I think. If it comforts you, for the purposes of discussion we can take it that my own position is incorrect. But if you don't wish to subject your own views and beliefs (about belief

) to the sort of examination you want to do to mine (which you have pointed out you have done loads of times before) that's OK, you don't have to.

nozzferrahhtoo

So you are just repeating that you are not willing to engage in the actual topic, and you just want to make it about me. And you are continuing to ignore all the points I have made (sometimes entire posts) while requesting I go back and cover SINGLE points you imagine are "outstanding" but are actually not.

To then suggest, after the REAMS of answers I willingly and happily gave you.... only to have them ignored..... that I "do not with to subject my views and beliefs" to examination is..... wow.... just wow. Who do you think, other than your own self, is going to but this canard? I sure as hell am not.

As I said, you are not demonstrating any good faith in this discussion. The exact opposite in fact. And as I said, I am done with you until you do.

smacl

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

Who is signed up to a system of morality as you describe? The Christian position is that there are natural laws which man can innately know (whether or not they are a Christian) and our understanding, and the implications of these natural laws, can and must be refined. Following these laws is the right thing to do because they are good, and we will be happiest if we follow them. If we don't follow them, we will be miserable and things will not go well. Not because someone will blow us up with lightening, but because we are acting in a manner contrary to our being. Doing the right thing, in other words, is good for us. Of course, justice is a necessary part of any moral and ethical system, would it be "good" if there was no justice for the wronged? Our legal system would be worth nothing if those who consciously decide to do what they know is wrong are not subject to justice. But do the mentally competent avoid committing horrendous crimes such as murder (or whatever) merely because they might get in trouble? Or get a medal if they don't? Of course not, we don't do these things because they are morally repugnant, they are simply "wrong" regardless of any positive law or carrot or stick.

You say that we arrive at what is moral or not via refined collective understanding. I agree with this, although obviously we can get things wrong. But implicit in your proposition is that there is something there to uncover and to understand. That there is a "right" way to go about things. On what basis do you believe that these universal rights and such, are "right"?

Tell me this, do you think that something, anything, was, is, and will always be wrong? If so/if not, why?

Any society that has signed up for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has agreed to a consensus based approach to minimum standards of how we reasonably treat others and an understanding that this subject to refinement. Your beliefs about the Christian understanding of natural law are just that; i.e. your beliefs. While they might be shared by some, they are not universal, nor even held by all Christians. My opinion is that Christian morality, particularly that surrounding sex and sexuality, is not just anachronistic but often barbaric. Explaining to my daughters that gay sex, for example, was actually illegal in this country as recently as 1993 was met with incredulity. That the Catholic church in this country advocated against same sex marriage was met with equal derision as was the whole pro-life agenda. Of course they were not alone here, with the majority of nominal Catholics in this country sharing a similar sentiment on these issues. I, and many other people I know, see this as a modal shift from publicly held notions of what is right and wrong which are dictated by church dogma to one centred on kindness, tolerance and respect for the needs of other people who may be very different to oneself. That there may overlap in what we hold to be right and wrong in no way vindicates your notions of natural law within my word-view.

robindch

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

Who is signed up to a system of morality as you describe? The Christian position is that there are natural laws which man can innately know (whether or not they are a Christian) and our understanding, and the implications of these natural laws, can and must be refined.

Christians signed up to a completely variable ethical world, despite that many believe - like you imply here - that there are permanent, unchangeable laws which are handed down by their chosen deity and which are to be followed, unblinkingly, by adherents.

This is demonstrably false - christians pick and mix their ethical choices just as non-christians and atheists do, and usually do so in line with ethical choices made by those around them.

You don't need to look any further than abortion - once entirely ignored by the RCC, then slowly tightened, starting in around the 16th century, and fully banned by the 19th, where it remains today.

nozzferrahhtoo

robindch wrote: »

christians pick and mix their ethical choices just as non-christians and atheists do

Agreed. And I would go down even more granular than that. It happens not just within Christianity but within each of the over 33,000 different branches and variants of Christianity.

You can pick any single one of those 33000 and you would find the same issue going on there alone at even that granular level.

Take Catholicism for example. If you put Andrew Sullivan and Bill OReilly in a room together..... both self confessed and dedicated and devout Catholics.... with a single copy of the Bible between them and asked them to discuss homosexuality they would come up with ENTIRELY different world views on the matter. Each of them claiming their god is on their side and the other is a heathen.

Which is why the evidence free notion that there is an objective morality is entirely useless even if it were to be true and real. Because in the end morality.... objective or otherwise.... remains solely and thus far entirely under the rubric of human subjectivity. The "wins" just are not there and the allegations of moral bankruptcy have no relative basis therefore.

[Deleted User]

smacl wrote: »

Any society that has signed up for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has agreed to a consensus based approach to minimum standards of how we reasonably treat others and an understanding that this subject to refinement. Your beliefs about the Christian understanding of natural law are just that; i.e. your beliefs. While they might be shared by some, they are not universal, nor even held by all Christians. My opinion is that Christian morality, particularly that surrounding sex and sexuality, is not just anachronistic but often barbaric. Explaining to my daughters that gay sex, for example, was actually illegal in this country as recently as 1993 was met with incredulity. That the Catholic church in this country advocated against same sex marriage was met with equal derision as was the whole pro-life agenda. Of course they were not alone here, with the majority of nominal Catholics in this country sharing a similar sentiment on these issues. I, and many other people I know, see this as a modal shift from publicly held notions of what is right and wrong which are dictated by church dogma to one centred on kindness, tolerance and respect for the needs of other people who may be very different to oneself. That there may overlap in what we hold to be right and wrong in no way vindicates your notions of natural law within my word-view.

That is all well and good, but does not address the questions posed, in particular the latter one:

You say that we arrive at what is moral or not via refined collective understanding. I agree with this, although obviously we can get things wrong. But implicit in your proposition is that there is something there to uncover and to understand. That there is a "right" way to go about things. On what basis do you believe that these universal rights and such, are "right"?

Tell me this, do you think that something, anything, was, is, and will always be wrong? If so/if not, why?

If the basis for it is "consensus" (maybe it is not, this is why I am asking) then why should anyone who does not "consent" be held to be bound by them? There are, in the world today or even in history, or probably in the future, laws and moral positions which you, I am sure, would object to. Perhaps in the future, the "consensus" will vary wildly from what you think is correct. But these laws and morals represented/could represent the consensus of the day and may even be viewed as according with such concepts such as "kindness". What is your basis for saying that these morals and laws are "wrong"? If you say that the understanding of respect, or kindness or whatever is wrong, and misunderstood, does this not imply that there is something objective and universal there about these concepts in the first instance to be understood?

You need not involve a God at this point, I have heard it before that rather than help us understand universal and objective morality and right and wrong, religion actually hinders and distorts our understanding and, if removed, we could understand it better. But that is someone else's point, I'm curious as to your own.

robindch wrote: »

Christians signed up to a completely variable ethical world, despite that many believe - like you imply here - that there are permanent, unchangeable laws which are handed down by their chosen deity and which are to be followed, unblinkingly, by adherents.

This is demonstrably false - christians pick and mix their ethical choices just as non-christians and atheists do, and usually do so in line with ethical choices made by those around them.

You don't need to look any further than abortion - once entirely ignored by the RCC, then slowly tightened, starting in around the 16th century, and fully banned by the 19th, where it remains today.

Following on from my point above, the idea that there exists a natural and universal law does not imply that we entirely and fully understand it and its implications at any particular point in time. Indeed, it is necessary to work at refining our understanding in order to appreciate how it should be applied to our own particular situations. It is also possible that mistakes could be made, that would (hopefully) in time be uncovered as such and corrected as we continue to refine our understanding of this universal law.

The reality that people may routinely break this law, does not undermine the idea of its existence. Indeed one of the main things Christianity acknowledges is that people routinely break it, get things wrong, and can and do willfully and in full knowledge break it. People have free will*, something can remain a law, even if it is broken. Could an action be said to be good, or bad, if we had no choice in the matter?

*Although a strict materialist understanding of the universe would challenge the concept of free will

smacl

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

Tell me this, do you think that something, anything, was, is, and will always be wrong? If so/if not, why?

Well yes, but not as a function of any universal natural law so much as our developed and developing understanding of how we should treat our fellow human. For example, I feel that it is wrong and has always been wrong to discriminate against or attack another person based on their sexual orientation. I think most people in civilized society would agree with this yet for very many it is an understanding that has recently been arrived at. Some still aren't there yet. There is no universal natural law at play here, merely that as we become an increasingly civilized race we are learning how to better treat others with the kindness, dignity and respect that they deserve. This is particularly true for those who might be very different from ourselves in many ways and I can think of many devout Christians who would consider this to be a core principle of their belief system too. This is in stark contrast to other Christians who seem to be of the opinion that those who are different from themselves are destined to burn in hell. Of course we are all entitled to our beliefs, but to vocally express a belief that someone will suffer eternal damnation for not according to one's own beliefs suggests a rather hateful religion.

What I think you'll find with supposed universal natural laws is that those who believe in them actually have conflicting beliefs. We arrive at an understanding of how we should behave by discussing and arguing these beliefs, the result of which is a consensus position.

robindch

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

[...] the idea that there exists a natural and universal law does not imply that we entirely and fully understand it and its implications at any particular point in time. Indeed, it is necessary to work at refining our understanding in order to appreciate how it should be applied to our own particular situations. It is also possible that mistakes could be made, that would (hopefully) in time be uncovered as such and corrected as we continue to refine our understanding of this universal law.

I can't recall meeting any christians, or indeed, anybody of any religion, who admitted that their understanding of an ethical law was wrong. Plenty of people who admit the abstract possibility that they might be wrong, but when it comes down to it, not a single person who says that they followed their god's law, and that this subsequently turned out to be the wrong thing to do.

Lukas Colossal Drink wrote: »

Although a strict materialist understanding of the universe would challenge the concept of free will

There's nothing in an atheist's worldview to suggest that free-will - the view that one is free to do what one wishes to do - doesn't exist, or isn't the way by which the world operates.

On the contrary, free-will falls flat on its face in the religious world, because it is logically incompatible with omnipotence, which itself is logically incompatible with omnibenevolence - the despairing efforts of theologians to show the opposite, notwithstanding.

railer201

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is rich given you pretty much ignored everything in post #3 by writing a response that had nothing to do with most of it, and responded to almost nothing in it. Then went to to entirely ignore post #5 completely. And then you went back to the same approach you used on post #3 with post #8 by writing a tiny response that addressed pretty much nothing at all which I said.

And now that you are showing the same signs of doing with post #13 when you did with #3 and #8, you have the gall to cherry pick out two minor things and suggest they are "outstanding". Which is further made galling by the fact that these "points" were already addressed in much of what you have thus far ignored and dodged in the posts before.

And all of that on a thread where you are pushing to make it all about me, while dodging and ignoring the ACTUAL original topic(s) of the thread.

You are not engaging in this conversation in good faith AT ALL are you? The original question that you ignored on another thread about the existence of god.... and are now ignoring on this thread about the existence of an objective morality........ was simple. Which is that given my experience with theists has been that 100% of them have not even got the first SHRED of evidence for these claims.... would I be wasting your time, and mine, by asking you if you were any different.

I have my answer. You are no different. And your last paragraph is the answer to that directly. Unless you want to start engaging in good faith and with some level of decorum therefore.... I am done here. If this is Christian morality in play, I want none of it.

To get theists to prove there is a God or Gods seems to be the persistent quest, when most people at the latest, possibly in their high school years, realise that's an impossibility. It's based on belief, just in the same way as atheists believe there is no such thing as a god/gods.

Most reasonable people who are not brainwashed one way or the other, realise there is no empirical proof of god or gods, however that doesn't stop them believing that there is a God, or there is not a God.

Perhaps the most honest position is that of those who put their hands up and admit they don't or can't know. But absence of proof isn't proof of absence of God. Because theists, or atheists if they're so inclined, can't prove there is a God means nothing in this great imponderable question, because it is intrinsically unanswerable.

smacl

railer201 wrote: »

To get theists to prove there is a God or Gods seems to be the persistent quest, when most people at the latest, possibly in their high school years, realise that's an impossibility. It's based on belief, just in the same way as atheists believe there is no such thing as a god/gods.

Nope. Definition of atheist is not believing in a god or gods. It is not typically, as you assert, believing there is no God. I.e. atheism typically is a lack of belief (agnostic atheism). It is not a positive alternate belief (gnostic atheism).

nozzferrahhtoo

railer201 wrote: »

To get theists to prove there is a God or Gods seems to be the persistent quest

Given I asked no one to do any such thing, perhaps you have taken your diatribe up with the wrong person? In fact I explicitly made it clear that was not what I was asking too in one of my posts.

railer201 wrote: »

It's based on belief, just in the same way as atheists believe there is no such thing as a god/gods.

Actually in my experience with atheists, which is quite extensive, very few of them express that position at all. So perhaps a better.... and lets face it, actually honest.... move from you when entering an atheism forum is to ASK THEM what they believe, rather than come in declaring what they believe? Because you only make yourself look bad otherwise, not them.

We have explained time and time and time again on this forum that Atheism is the position that there is no reason at this time to think there is a god, and so we proceed without that idea/assumption/notion/fantasy. That is all. So rather than admonishing people to take a more honest approach.... perhaps stop and realize WE ALREADY ARE

railer201 wrote: »

that doesn't stop them believing

And so what? I care little what people believe, most of the time. The issue is however that they do not stop with personal belief. Rather they will go into topics about hospitals, and schools, and politics, and abortion, and homosexuality and more...... espousing positions directly formulated on the position there imaginary friend exists.

At THAT point, asking them to substantiate the existence of this entity becomes fair game. I am not going to their homes (much like many religious people do as they go door to door with their "good news) trying to convert them. I have no interest in disabusing theists of their god notions at all.

But the moment they enter a public sphere of education, power, or discourse espousing their beliefs.... then simply declaring they "believe" it..... is irrelevant white noise. The basis for their belief becomes relevant at that point. And if something they espouse turns out to be not just slightly.... but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated..... then they should be happily and politely asked to leave the table of discourse.

railer201

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Given I asked no one to do any such thing, perhaps you have taken your diatribe up with the wrong person? In fact I explicitly made it clear that was not what I was asking too in one of my posts.

Actually in my experience with atheists, which is quite extensive, very few of them express that position at all. So perhaps a better.... and lets face it, actually honest.... move from you when entering an atheism forum is to ASK THEM what they believe, rather than come in declaring what they believe? Because you only make yourself look bad otherwise, not them.

We have explained time and time and time again on this forum that Atheism is the position that there is no reason at this time to think there is a god, and so we proceed without that idea/assumption/notion/fantasy. That is all. So rather than admonishing people to take a more honest approach.... perhaps stop and realize WE ALREADY ARE

And so what? I care little what people believe, most of the time. The issue is however that they do not stop with personal belief. Rather they will go into topics about hospitals, and schools, and politics, and abortion, and homosexuality and more...... espousing positions directly formulated on the position there imaginary friend exists.

At THAT point, asking them to substantiate the existence of this entity becomes fair game. I am not going to their homes (much like many religious people do as they go door to door with their "good news) trying to convert them. I have no interest in disabusing theists of their god notions at all.

But the moment they enter a public sphere of education, power, or discourse espousing their beliefs.... then simply declaring they "believe" it..... is irrelevant white noise. The basis for their belief becomes relevant at that point. And if something they espouse turns out to be not just slightly.... but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated..... then they should be happily and politely asked to leave the table of discourse.

Oh no ? Forgive me for suggesting that is exactly what you're asking above ^^^^and also the thread title is - 'Yet another asking a Theist to prove xxxx threads created from off topic', and to quote from your OP.

I asked in another post, but was entirely ignored by you, whether you would be different to any other theists who come into this forum in that you could substantiate the existence of a god. Or would I be wasting both of our time by asking.

smacl

railer201 wrote: »

Oh no ? Forgive me for suggesting that is exactly what you're asking above ^^^^and also the thread title is - 'Yet another asking a Theist to prove xxxx threads created from off topic', and to quote from your OP.

Mod note: The title of the thread came from the moderator who broke it off from another discussion where it was off topic. Nothing to do with the poster that you are quoting.

railer201

smacl wrote: »

Nope. Definition of atheist is not believing in a god or gods. It is not typically, as you assert, believing there is no God. I.e. atheism typically is a lack of belief (agnostic atheism). It is not a positive alternate belief (gnostic atheism).

Some definitions give atheism as believing there is no God, but that wasn't the point of the post. The point was, whether you believe or not believe, belief is all there is available and it is obviously not proof.

So this leads to again IMO, to a problem which I feel the OP knows any theist can't resolve, by providing scientific or empirical proof. What you cannot proceed to do is draw a conclusion that following on from that 'God or gods do not exist'. As stated absence of proof isn't proof of absence. Somehow one gets the impression it's just all about winning the argument, and having a sideswipe at theists on the way along, referring to 'imaginery friends' etc.,