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.
Then go ahead and refresh it. I don't recall discussing Bayesian reasoning at all. For the reasons stated, I do believe it is of limited relevance when the assignment of probabilities is largely a matter of personal whim, as is typically the case with religious and paranormal claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
The bottom line (in atheism) is that the universe has no plan (apart from the survival inherent in evolution) for us and doesn't care whether we live or die.
But we do, and that's all that matters.
Aren't you simply making my point for me? What if my notion of meaning is exploiting you and others to the maximum possible extent for my own amusement and benefit? Is there something wrong with this? If so, why?
What if my notion of meaning is raping as many women as I can, or torturing as many animals as I can, or eliminating as many fellow humans as I can, or even blowing up the planet? Is there something wrong with this? If so, why?
The overarching atheist delusion is that, if there were no religion, humanity would operate according to the latest version of the Humanist Manifesto. The truth of Christianity is that this is nonsense because human nature is fundamentally sinful. Human society will never operate according to anything like the Humanist Manifesto, as the failure of a myriad of well-meaning utopian experiments has shown. More to the point, why is the Humanist Manifesto inherently any more valid or worthy than Stalinism, Maoism or Hitler's National Socialism?
I don't think you can escape the fact that, for the naturalistic atheist, the meaning of life, such as it is, comes down to a matter of personal opinion. Certainly, for some atheists this means attempting to be as honest, kind, generous and responsible as possible, to raise children with similar values, to be a good steward of the planet, and so on and so forth. But for many others, it means indulging their innate greed and lust and exploiting others. The point is, there is no objective basis for saying one set of opinions is any more valid or worthy than another.
In my pretty considerable experience, which includes debating with sophisticated atheists for at least 25 years, the "meaning" that atheists claim boils down to "being able to do whatever I want, to indulge my human nature, free of the sorts of commands and demands that theism would impose upon it, free of any guilt and free of any notion of eternal consequences." I might enjoy that, too, but I still submit that such a life is inherently less deep, rich and meaningful than a Christian life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
This forum is about a statement of belief about god. The one you are up against is a statement of belief about anti-god. we can't ignore that fact that avoiding some science in a forum means the forum is not about facts and truth.
how would you discussing god in a forum filled with Muslims? Buddhist? or any other religion?
Its the exact same here. This site is filled with atheist that are fighting for their statement of belief about god. Its not about truth or comparison, its about their statement of belief about god.
its not about truth for them anymore than it is for you. How would you argue with a Muslim? that is the exact same way they will argue with you.
the difference is there are some atheist here that don't care about atheist religion looking groups, we only care about the best truths we have. So the faith based atheist can use some of our stuff, albeit selectively.
Very very selectivily.
I believe I can, and sometimes do, have more rational and objective discussion with a Buddhist or Muslim - at least one who wasn't filled to the gills with foaming-at-the-mouth disdain or hatred for Christianity. As you perceptively recognize, the overarching theme of all the discussions here is virulently anti-God and specifically anti-Christian. Kindly, genial Irkle is a lightning rod because he doesn't fit the preferred mold of easy-target Christians who only spout Bible verses and platitudes.
I believe Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and many other isms can be the basis for a rich and deeply meaningful life. My discussions with such folks would focus on why Christianity provides a better and thus more believable explanation for what we observe and experience about our own natures, our fellow humans and the reality we inhabit.
A naturalistic atheist, on the other hand, is in an entirely different category for the reasons I've described. When the atheist rhetoric about meaning and purpose is closely examined, it really does not make sense - is literally irrational - without a theistic foundation.
Then go ahead and refresh it. I don't recall discussing Bayesian reasoning at all. For the reasons stated, I do believe it is of limited relevance when the assignment of probabilities is largely a matter of personal whim, as is typically the case with religious and paranormal claims.
Aren't you simply making my point for me? What if my notion of meaning is exploiting you and others to the maximum possible extent for my own amusement and benefit? Is there something wrong with this? If so, why?
What if my notion of meaning is raping as many women as I can, or torturing as many animals as I can, or eliminating as many fellow humans as I can, or even blowing up the planet? Is there something wrong with this? If so, why?
The overarching atheist delusion is that, if there were no religion, humanity would operate according to the latest version of the Humanist Manifesto. The truth of Christianity is that this is nonsense because human nature is fundamentally sinful. Human society will never operate according to anything like the Humanist Manifesto, as the failure of a myriad of well-meaning utopian experiments has shown. More to the point, why is the Humanist Manifesto inherently any more valid or worthy than Stalinism, Maoism or Hitler's National Socialism?
I don't think you can escape the fact that, for the naturalistic atheist, the meaning of life, such as it is, comes down to a matter of personal opinion. Certainly, for some atheists this means attempting to be as honest, kind, generous and responsible as possible, to raise children with similar values, to be a good steward of the planet, and so on and so forth. But for many others, it means indulging their innate greed and lust and exploiting others. The point is, there is no objective basis for saying one set of opinions is any more valid or worthy than another.
In my pretty considerable experience, which includes debating with sophisticated atheists for at least 25 years, the "meaning" that atheists claim boils down to "being able to do whatever I want, to indulge my human nature, free of the sorts of commands and demands that theism would impose upon it, free of any guilt and free of any notion of eternal consequences." I might enjoy that, too, but I still submit that such a life is inherently less deep, rich and meaningful than a Christian life.
I believe I can, and sometimes do, have more rational and objective discussion with a Buddhist or Muslim - at least one who wasn't filled to the gills with foaming-at-the-mouth disdain or hatred for Christianity. As you perceptively recognize, the overarching theme of all the discussions here is virulently anti-God and specifically anti-Christian. Kindly, genial Irkle is a lightning rod because he doesn't fit the preferred mold of easy-target Christians who only spout Bible verses and platitudes.
I believe Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and many other isms can be the basis for a rich and deeply meaningful life. My discussions with such folks would focus on why Christianity provides a better and thus more believable explanation for what we observe and experience about our own natures, our fellow humans and the reality we inhabit.
A naturalistic atheist, on the other hand, is in an entirely different category for the reasons I've described. When the atheist rhetoric about meaning and purpose is closely examined, it really does not make sense - is literally irrational - without a theistic foundation.
exactly. you can have meaningful conversations with most atheist. Like you have have meaningful conversations with most Buddhist.
yes, we do not base "meaning" on a deity. We base meaning on what we have at hand. But I can see how you think its baseless if you need a deity to base it on..
What if my notion of meaning is raping as many women as I can, or torturing as many animals as I can, or eliminating as many fellow humans as I can, or even blowing up the planet? Is there something wrong with this? If so, why?
Well, is there something wrong with that.... as far as the universe is concerned? No. Most of nature is characterized by rape and death and terror.
Our morality comes from our instincts. How does a bird know to fly? How does a fish know how to swim? We are pre-programmed.
Morality is not universal, it is derived entirely from our physical and biological nature, and is global only to humans because of this commonality. Morality means nothing when talking about a cat that plays with a mouse before eating it, or a chimpanzee that goes around raping females and killing all the infants after overthrowing the old dominant male.
Being humans, we have certain things in common as a matter of our makeup -- pain, emotion, empathy, trust, etc. We respond similarly to stimulus, and we can recognize the cause-effect relationships between actions and responses. Clearly moral sentiments depend on this. Suppose pain felt good -- like a warm tingling that spread throughout your body -- would it still be immoral to torture someone? What if, every time you were murdered prior to your natural death, you simply woke up the next day like normal? Would murder still be immoral in the same way if, at most, you were stealing one day from someone?
Everything depends on the specifics of the human condition -- what is or is not avoidable, what is or is not equitable, what is or is not reversible, and what does or does not cause particular emotional physical consequences for humans.
This leaves no room for moral relativism, either, if we value our own collective instincts. It is a statement of fact that Hitler's worldview was immoral: a society that hunts down and kills people is not healthy for individuals and can be sustained only by actively resisting our base instincts.
As you can see, this walks a line between absolutism and relativism, with human nature as the deciding factor. You might expect that to leads to many errors and ambiguities, and sure enough -- look around -- the world is rife with these ambiguities, and good intentions gone bad, and bad intentions able to get ground. But as long as we value our own human experience, the collective sense of that experience creates the baseline against which to judge morality, for fellow humans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
The overarching atheist delusion is that, if there were no religion, humanity would operate according to the latest version of the Humanist Manifesto.
I actually agree with you here. I think if there were no religion, humanity would go on operating largely as it has been, which means plenty of attempts at cooperation, punctuated by a lot of strife and malevolence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
... the "meaning" that atheists claim boils down to "being able to do whatever I want, to indulge my human nature, free of the sorts of commands and demands that theism would impose upon it, free of any guilt and free of any notion of eternal consequences."
Complete straw man, and a caricature that undermines your own solid point above, that some people would be good and some people would be bad, as is human nature. I spend my time worrying about navigating the world in a way that helps my family, my community, and keeps me from vice. The notion of being "free from demands" doesn't make sense to me, as I've never understood the world in those terms anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
I believe Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and many other isms can be the basis for a rich and deeply meaningful life.
Agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
When the atheist rhetoric about meaning and purpose is closely examined, it really does not make sense - is literally irrational - without a theistic foundation.
Nah, you're making an assumption of your own that you refuse to examine: we ought to respect the dictates of God. That's an ab initio supposition you have to on-board to get divine command theory off the ground. Maybe that assumption makes sense to you, but no matter how you slice it, you are choosing to turn an "is" into an "ought" and deriving your morality from there. That supposition is no better informed or less arbitrary than one an atheist might make about valuing the broad human experience. Everyone has to make a value judgement without a basis, at some point, to bootstrap the whole thing.
Nah, you're making an assumption of your own that you refuse to examine: we ought to respect the dictates of God. That's an ab initio supposition you have to on-board to get divine command theory off the ground. Maybe that assumption makes sense to you, but no matter how you slice it, you are choosing to turn an "is" into an "ought" and deriving your morality from there. That supposition is no better informed or less arbitrary than one an atheist might make about valuing the broad human experience. Everyone has to make a value judgement without a basis, at some point, to bootstrap the whole thing.
This encapsulates the fundamental issue - the ab initio premise from which we reason. Athesits demand that we all use their ab initio premise about what our Reality is NOT - God - which is no more justified than theists demanding we use their ab initio premise about what our Reality IS - God. There's the rub because we simply "Do Not Know" what our Reality is or is not.
Then go ahead and refresh it. I don't recall discussing Bayesian reasoning at all. For the reasons stated, I do believe it is of limited relevance when the assignment of probabilities is largely a matter of personal whim, as is typically the case with religious and paranormal claims.
Aren't you simply making my point for me? What if my notion of meaning is exploiting you and others to the maximum possible extent for my own amusement and benefit? Is there something wrong with this? If so, why?
What if my notion of meaning is raping as many women as I can, or torturing as many animals as I can, or eliminating as many fellow humans as I can, or even blowing up the planet? Is there something wrong with this? If so, why?
The overarching atheist delusion is that, if there were no religion, humanity would operate according to the latest version of the Humanist Manifesto. The truth of Christianity is that this is nonsense because human nature is fundamentally sinful. Human society will never operate according to anything like the Humanist Manifesto, as the failure of a myriad of well-meaning utopian experiments has shown. More to the point, why is the Humanist Manifesto inherently any more valid or worthy than Stalinism, Maoism or Hitler's National Socialism?
I don't think you can escape the fact that, for the naturalistic atheist, the meaning of life, such as it is, comes down to a matter of personal opinion. Certainly, for some atheists this means attempting to be as honest, kind, generous and responsible as possible, to raise children with similar values, to be a good steward of the planet, and so on and so forth. But for many others, it means indulging their innate greed and lust and exploiting others. The point is, there is no objective basis for saying one set of opinions is any more valid or worthy than another.
In my pretty considerable experience, which includes debating with sophisticated atheists for at least 25 years, the "meaning" that atheists claim boils down to "being able to do whatever I want, to indulge my human nature, free of the sorts of commands and demands that theism would impose upon it, free of any guilt and free of any notion of eternal consequences." I might enjoy that, too, but I still submit that such a life is inherently less deep, rich and meaningful than a Christian life.
I believe I can, and sometimes do, have more rational and objective discussion with a Buddhist or Muslim - at least one who wasn't filled to the gills with foaming-at-the-mouth disdain or hatred for Christianity. As you perceptively recognize, the overarching theme of all the discussions here is virulently anti-God and specifically anti-Christian. Kindly, genial Irkle is a lightning rod because he doesn't fit the preferred mold of easy-target Christians who only spout Bible verses and platitudes.
I believe Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and many other isms can be the basis for a rich and deeply meaningful life. My discussions with such folks would focus on why Christianity provides a better and thus more believable explanation for what we observe and experience about our own natures, our fellow humans and the reality we inhabit.
A naturalistic atheist, on the other hand, is in an entirely different category for the reasons I've described. When the atheist rhetoric about meaning and purpose is closely examined, it really does not make sense - is literally irrational - without a theistic foundation.
Apart from the finger -pointing, which we can pass over as doing you no credit, you make a point about relative morality. I'm not going to say this is easy and of course, people who see no reason not to do what they like because there is no divine CCTV will do so, police and laws aside.
On the other hand, there are cases where religious conviction that God wants this or that is not open to discussion because God says so.
In that case a general consensus which has made its' case (with reciprocity, or the Golden Rule acting as a universal rule) has gained a holistic approval and even the bad try to pretend they aspire to it. Religion only has to point to what they believe God wants and play the martyr if anyone criticises them.
It is actually Human morality that Christianity (for example) has grudgingly had to play catch -up to, and is still doing it.
Do you always give such mean-spirited responses to polite questions? This remark of yours is very ungracious.
he only responded to phets post. I think he did in the same tone as phet ... whats the big deal?
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.
