Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's merely the 'no evidence would convince an atheist'/'Even if Jesus himself came down, atheists would not beleive it' apologetic.
To which I say that if God or Jesus came down as said that Christianity was actually not true, would the believers go along with it?
And if something popped into their head and said that 'the right religion is actually atheism' wouldn't they dismiss that as a trick of the mind if not Satan?
Iwash is in no position to lecture atheists on closed mindedness.
Yes, back to the topic. Here is where I left Julian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
Harry:
Do yo realize that the concept of innate morality was the main thrust of CS Lewis as he converted from Atheism to Christianity. Like you he felt all cultures had this innate sense. He points out that in all human interactions where one person wrongs another our usual response is to appeal to the other person's innate send of right and wrong. And we expect them to either agree or disagree based upon what appears to be an agreed set of values.
Whatever innate morality humans have is either a social construct or the result of evolutionary forces. Why do you have problems with morality as a social construct?
I do not have a problem, I understand how groups and cultures effect our morality. But once one asks why we are moral, this should effect how valuable these social constructs are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
Ahh, I finally see why you are uncomfortable. You think this is a discussion about politics. This is not about politics, that is the last thing on my mind.
Completely wrong. I am not uncomfortable, nor do I think this is about politics. But morality does play a role in politics, and thinking rationally about why we are moral will lead a honest person to question not only their political position, but their view of gender, race, how we treat criminals, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
When I asked you about gender i was simply trying to ascertain if you had lost the ability to reason. It seems that you have not, but it was certainly painful for you to say YES.
Wrong, I simply refused to play your game (there were more than one answer), and I also wanted to see if you could make a rational argument yourself instead of dropping oft irrelevant phrases into the dialogue.
Unfortunately all you did was drop an irrelevant passage about C S Lewis.
If we are activist against religion I say and do things one way. If we are are here to discuss beliefs, then I act another way.
The moral part is really just holding ourselves to the same standards. As soon as we have to avoid claims because "they don't get us anywhere" and "they are not what we are addressing". that just reeks like hypocrites.
And, if we are not sure who is crazy ... lets compare what is actually said. With the limits on one side removed.
You really are a laugh Mystic. I do not refute you on the existence of God issue except to say that it is not evidenced in any credible way and thus is not worthy of belief.
Again you quotemine Webster, which has specific personal -god examples of the 'reality' (1) and your quotemine to make it look as though Webster said that everything (as it is and appears) is 'God' is a cheat.
We have done the definition of atheism too. Even if atheism claimed to know that no god existed, you would say that this was logically untenable and atheism would Have to revert to saying that there is no good reason to credit the god -claim, which is what atheism says. Logically atheism's definition is unavoidable. You insist on forcing an illogical claim on atheism so that the burden of proof is shifted from Your shoulders. That is, to use your words, is a very dishonest and deceitful practice, despite being the basic argument of Christian apologetics.
I doubt that any scientists would say that the evidence of science is not evidence of God, because (like atheism) it does not disprove a god. You are again reversing the burden of proof because the point is whether the evidence of science does show a god. It does not, and thus there is no reason to credit the god -claim.
Now I know that I/D attempts to have science evidence a god. And some with scientific credentials have tried to show this. But these efforts fail. And I remind you that the best attempt to prove ID was struck down at Dover.
You have nothing, and your repeated efforts to force an untenable position on atheism so as to make it an easy strawman to knock down, will not get you anywhere and your block capital screaming and insults and abuse, not to mention being shown to be misrepresenting and getting debunked and a few days later, making the same arguments - as though everyone's memory was a bad as yours - just make you look a laughing -stock.
(1) Definition of god (Entry 1 of 2)
1God : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as
a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe
Throughout the patristic and medieval periods, Christian theologians taught that God created the universe …
— Jame Schaefer
… the Supreme Being or God, the personal form of the Ultimate Reality, is conceived by Hindus as having various aspects.
— Sunita Pant Bansal
bChristian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2or less commonly God : a being or object that is worshipped as having more than natural attributes and powers
THERE IS NO BURDEN OF PROOF because science is incapable of determining the ONTOLOGY of anything it investigates - only its attributes, PERIOD! Whether or not it is God is entirely the realm of BELIEF, making your atheism equally a belief with no special status over my BELIEF about it. AS regards Webster's definition, the number one definition is the dominant one. No one disputes that some religions have often irrational and absurd BELIEFS ABOUT God but that has no bearing whatsoever on the EMPIRICAL issue of EXISTENCE!!!
This is just fiddling with words. You do not call your computer desk 'God', you do not call your car 'God', you do not call your state, country or planet 'God nor the solar system, galaxy or local cluster 'God'. But for some reason you call the universe 'God'. Why? Why is that mass of matter and energy God while nothing else is? Yo can call it anything you like of course but why do you insist that everyone else should? They would reasonably say that it has to have a mind. Indeed Your theory says it is 'conscious'. You know as well as I do that if it isn't conscious with intelligence and will, it is material matter and physical laws.
It is for you to show that the universe has intelligence, and that is the minimum you need to demonstrate before there is any obligation for anyone else to apply the term 'God' (other than waggish physicists talking about natural physical laws).
That's the burden of proof on you. As well as looking up the actual definition of God instead of trying to foist a quotemine on us (anything other than the Personalgod examples given is undefined. And you do not get to shoehorn your own definitions in there), why not look up 'Burden of proof' and see that you do not get to rewrite the rules of logic to suit yourself?
This is just fiddling with words. You do not call your computer desk 'God', you do not call your car 'God', you do not call your state, country or planet 'God nor the solar system, galaxy or local cluster 'God'. But for some reason you call the universe 'God'. Why? Why is that mass of matter and energy God while nothing else is? Yo can call it anything you like of course but why do you insist that everyone else should? They would reasonably say that it has to have a mind. Indeed Your theory says it is 'conscious'. You know as well as I do that if it isn't conscious with intelligence and will, it is material matter and physical laws.
It is for you to show that the universe has intelligence, and that is the minimum you need to demonstrate before there is any obligation for anyone else to apply the term 'God' (other than waggish physicists talking about natural physical laws).
That's the burden of proof on you. As well as looking up the actual definition of God instead of trying to foist a quotemine on us (anything other than the Personalgod examples given is undefined. And you do not get to shoehorn your own definitions in there), why not look up 'Burden of proof' and see that you do not get to rewrite the rules of logic to suit yourself?
UTTER NONSENSE!!! No one needs to call anything God because that is a BELIEF about our Reality. But calling it nature or the universe is NOT mandated either because they are NEUTRAL terms specifically to avoid addressing the ontology of our Reality. YOUR usurpation of that neutrality to PRETEND that science supports your lack of belief in God is BOGUS. Science does not and cannot support any such claim. You like the terms and BELIEVE they indicate there is no evidence of God but that is NOT FACT, that is your preferred ASSUMPTION. You have used this asinine assumption of yours to run roughshod over the religious and spiritual people in this forum for far too long.
Your beliefs about the EXISTENCE of God are BELIEFS and have no more scientific standing than anyone else's BELIEFS. Your preference for the God descriptions in religious dogma as the only possible definitions of God is self-serving because they are so easy to refute. The EXISTENCE of God is an empirical question about what our Reality is or is not, period. The EXISTENCE question is not answered by BELIEFS and science is incapable of resolving the question empirically contrary to your uninformed opinions.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 01-12-2021 at 02:23 PM..
That only works if you pretend that 'God' and 'nature' are meaningless labels that carry no baggage. You can only do that by ignoring the examples of the 'baggage' attached to the 'God' label in the definition and pretend that it only means 'reality' (everything that exists).
Nature also has baggage, which is everything that exists or let's see.
Hmm - well. Definition of nature
1a: the inherent character or basic constitution (see CONSTITUTION sense 2) of a person or thing : ESSENCE
the nature of the controversy
b: DISPOSITION, TEMPERAMENT
it was his nature to look after others
— F. A. Swinnerton
her romantic nature
2a: a creative and controlling force in the universe
b: an inner force (such as instinct, appetite, desire) or the sum of such forces in an individual
3: a kind or class usually distinguished by fundamental or essential characteristics
documents of a confidential nature
acts of a ceremonial nature
4: the physical constitution or drives of an organism
especially : an excretory organ or function —used in phrases like the call of nature
5: a spontaneous attitude (as of generosity)
6: the external world in its entirety
7a: humankind's original or natural condition
b: a simplified mode of life resembling this condition
escape from civilization and get back to nature
8: the genetically controlled qualities of an organism
nature … modified by nurture...
Obviously covers a lot of terms but including a few terms for things in their entirely. That's 'Everything' and Reality - not 'God'. Until you can validate with evidence the baggage that other bring to the word 'God' - because you do not get to impose your own meaning on the word as it suits you - you have nothing but a semantic swindle.
That only works if you pretend that 'God' and 'nature' are meaningless labels that carry no baggage. You can only do that by ignoring the examples of the 'baggage' attached to the 'God' label in the definition and pretend that it only means 'reality' (everything that exists).
Nature also has baggage, which is everything that exists or let's see.
Hmm - well. Definition of nature
1a: the inherent character or basic constitution (see CONSTITUTION sense 2) of a person or thing : ESSENCE
the nature of the controversy
b: DISPOSITION, TEMPERAMENT
it was his nature to look after others
— F. A. Swinnerton
her romantic nature
2a: a creative and controlling force in the universe
b: an inner force (such as instinct, appetite, desire) or the sum of such forces in an individual
3: a kind or class usually distinguished by fundamental or essential characteristics
documents of a confidential nature
acts of a ceremonial nature
4: the physical constitution or drives of an organism
especially : an excretory organ or function —used in phrases like the call of nature
5: a spontaneous attitude (as of generosity)
6: the external world in its entirety
7a: humankind's original or natural condition
b: a simplified mode of life resembling this condition
escape from civilization and get back to nature
8: the genetically controlled qualities of an organism
nature … modified by nurture...
Obviously covers a lot of terms but including a few terms for things in their entirely. That's 'Everything' and Reality - not 'God'. Until you can validate with evidence the baggage that other bring to the word 'God' - because you do not get to impose your own meaning on the word as it suits you - you have nothing but a semantic swindle.
You keep arguing against my BELIEF that our Reality is God AS IF I am demanding it be the default for you. I do not do that. YOU DO!!! You have no more basis for demanding any such thing than I do because science can NOT determine the ONTOLOGY of our Reality. Please educate yourself or stop lying for atheism as you accuse religionists of doing for Jesus.
That only works if you pretend that 'God' and 'nature' are meaningless labels that carry no baggage. You can only do that by ignoring the examples of the 'baggage' attached to the 'God' label in the definition and pretend that it only means 'reality' (everything that exists).
Nature also has baggage, which is everything that exists or let's see.
Nipped for space
Obviously covers a lot of terms but including a few terms for things in their entirely. That's 'Everything' and Reality - not 'God'. Until you can validate with evidence the baggage that other bring to the word 'God' - because you do not get to impose your own meaning on the word as it suits you - you have nothing but a semantic swindle.
We have to make up our mind. Are we going with strength of evidence or baggage in the definitions.
Yes, back to the topic. Here is where I left Julian.
Irrelevant.
I do not think it is irrelevant that you and CS Lewis and you had a similar view of morality.
Quote:
Completely wrong. I am not uncomfortable, nor do I think this is about politics. But morality does play a role in politics, and thinking rationally about why we are moral will lead a honest person to question not only their political position, but their view of gender, race, how we treat criminals, etc.
Why do you think your morality is better than the morality of someone that disagrees with the above?
Do you know why most engineers are men?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
