Scientists replicate key evolutionary step in life on earth
January 16, 2012
Green cells are undergoing cell death, a cellular division-of-labor--fostering new life. Credit: Will Ratcliff and Mike Travisano
(PhysOrg.com) -- More than 500 million years ago, single-celled organisms on Earth's surface began forming multi-cellular clusters that ultimately became plants and animals.
Just how that happened is a question that has eluded evolutionary biologists.
Now scientists have replicated that key step in the laboratory using common Brewer's yeast, a single-celled organism.
The yeast "evolved" into multi-cellular clusters that work together cooperatively, reproduce and adapt to their environment--in essence, they became precursors to life on Earth as it is today.
The results are published in this week's issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
"The finding that the division-of-labor evolves so quickly and repeatedly in these 'snowflake' clusters is a big surprise," says George Gilchrist, acting deputy division director of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Division of Environmental Biology, which funded the research.
"The first step toward multi-cellular complexity seems to be less of an evolutionary hurdle than theory would suggest," says Gilchrist. "This will stimulate a lot of important research questions."
It all started two years ago with a casual comment over coffee that bridging the famous multi-cellularity gap would be "just about the coolest thing we could do," recalled Will Ratcliff and Michael Travisano, scientists at the University of Minnesota (UMN) and authors of the PNAS paper.
Other authors of the paper are Ford Denison and Mark Borrello of UMN.
Then came the big surprise: it wasn't that difficult.
Using yeast cells, culture media and a centrifuge, it only took the biologists one experiment conducted over about 60 days.
Multi-cellular 'snowflake' yeast images with a blue cell-wall stain and red dead-cell stain. Credit: Will Ratcliff and Mike Travisano
"I don't think anyone had ever tried it before," says Ratcliff. "There aren't many scientists doing experimental evolution, and they're trying to answer questions about evolution, not recreate it."The results have earned praise from evolutionary biologists around the world.
"To understand why the world is full of plants and animals, including humans, we need to know how one-celled organisms made the switch to living as a group, as multi-celled organisms," says Sam Scheiner, program director in NSF's Division of Environmental Biology.
"This study is the first to experimentally observe that transition," says Scheiner, "providing a look at an event that took place hundreds of millions of years ago."
In essence, here's how the experiments worked:
The scientists chose Brewer's yeast, or Saccharomyces cerevisiae, a species of yeast used since ancient times to make bread and beer because it is abundant in nature and grows easily.
They added it to nutrient-rich culture media and allowed the cells to grow for a day in test tubes.
Then they used a centrifuge to stratify the contents by weight.
As the mixture settled, cell clusters landed on the bottom of the tubes faster because they are heavier. The biologists removed the clusters, transferred them to fresh media, and agitated them again.
First steps in the transition to multi-cellularity: 'snowflake' yeast with dead cells stained red. Credit: Will Ratcliff and Mike Travisano
Sixty cycles later, the clusters--now hundreds of cells--looked like spherical snowflakes.Analysis showed that the clusters were not just groups of random cells that adhered to each other, but related cells that remained attached following cell division.
That was significant because it meant that they were genetically similar, which promotes cooperation. When the clusters reached a critical size, some cells died off in a process known as apoptosis to allow offspring to separate.
The offspring reproduced only after they attained the size of their parents.
Multi-cellular yeast individuals containing central dead cells, which promote reproduction. Credit: Will Ratcliff and Mike Travisano
"A cluster alone isn't multi-cellular," Ratcliff says. "But when cells in a cluster cooperate, make sacrifices for the common good, and adapt to change, that's an evolutionary transition to multi-cellularity."In order for multi-cellular organisms to form, most cells need to sacrifice their ability to reproduce, an altruistic action that favors the whole but not the individual, Ratcliff says.
For example, all cells in the human body are essentially a support system that allows sperm and eggs to pass DNA along to the next generation.
Thus multi-cellularity is by its nature very cooperative.
"Some of the best competitors in nature are those that engage in cooperation, and our experiment bears that out," says Travisano.
Evolutionary biologists have estimated that multi-cellularity evolved independently in about 25 groups.
Travisano and Ratcliff wonder why it didn't evolve more often since it's not that difficult to recreate in a lab.
Considering that trillions of one-celled organisms lived on Earth for millions of years, it seems like it should have, Ratcliff says.
That may be a question the biologists will answer in the future using the fossil record for thousands of generations of multi-cellular clusters, which are stored in a freezer in Travisano's lab.
Since the frozen samples contain multiple cell lines that independently became multi-cellular, the researchers can compare them to learn whether similar or different mechanisms and genes were responsible in each case, Travisano says.
The next steps will be to look at the role of multi-cellularity in cancer, aging and other critical areas of biology.
"Multi-cellular yeast is a valuable resource for investigating a wide variety of medically and biologically important topics," Travisano says.
"Cancer was recently described as a fossil from the origin of multi-cellularity, which can be directly investigated with the yeast system.
"Similarly the origins of aging, development and the evolution of complex morphologies are open to direct experimental investigation that would otherwise be difficult or impossible."
More information: Ratcliff, W. C., Denison, R. F., Borrello, M. & Travisano, M. Experimental evolution of multicellularity, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. http://dx.doi.org/ … s.1115323109 (2012).
-
Sodium channels evolved before animals' nervous systems, research shows
May 17, 2011 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Is this how simple life got complicated?
Aug 09, 2011 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Deep blue research digs up evolutionary past
Nov 20, 2008 |
not rated yet |
0
-
New database for vital model organism launched
Nov 28, 2011 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket
Jan 27, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Stars containing dark matter should look different from other stars
Feb 20, 2012 |
4.5 / 5 (17) |
11
-
Physicists discover evidence of rare hypernucleus, a component of strange matter
Feb 17, 2012 |
4.7 / 5 (38) |
22
-
Fast photon control brings quantum photonic technologies closer
Feb 13, 2012 |
5 / 5 (8) |
1
-
Engineers build first sub-10-nm carbon nanotube transistor
Feb 01, 2012 |
4.9 / 5 (36) |
32
-
Something old, something new: Evolution and the structural divergence of duplicate genes
Jan 31, 2012 |
4.6 / 5 (7) |
1
-
Eye biology videos
4 hours ago
-
Flowering Plant Revived After 30,000 Years in Permafrost
Feb 21, 2012
-
Toba volcano eruptions - 1.000 - 10,000 breeding pairsunb
Feb 20, 2012
-
How is a specific gene removed from DNA
Feb 20, 2012
-
Reproduction and Human evolution
Feb 19, 2012
-
Viruses: Living or Non-living organisms
Feb 19, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Biology
More news stories
Surprising diversity at a synapse hints at complex diversity of neural circuitry
A new study reveals a dazzling degree of biological diversity in an unexpected place – a single neural connection in the body wall of flies.
10 hours ago |
5 / 5 (4) |
0
|
Men might not 'become extinct' after all: Theory of the 'rotting' Y chromosome dealt a fatal blow
If you were to discover that a fundamental component of human biology has survived virtually intact for the past 25 million years, you'd be quite confident in saying that it is here to stay.
13 hours ago |
5 / 5 (6) |
1
|
New family of legless amphibians found in India
Since before the age of dinosaurs it has burrowed unbothered beneath the monsoon-soaked soils of remote northeast India - unknown to science and mistaken by villagers as a deadly, miniature snake.
21 hours ago |
5 / 5 (8) |
3
Climate change affects bird migration timing in North America
Bird migration timing across North America has been affected by climate change, according to a study published Feb. 22 in the open access journal PLoS ONE.
9 hours ago |
4.5 / 5 (2) |
2
New iridescent lizard species found in Cambodia
A new species of lizard with striking iridescent rainbow skin, a long tail and very short legs has been discovered in the rainforest in northeast Cambodia, conservationists announced Wednesday.
10 hours ago |
not rated yet |
0
Researchers build first physical 'metatronic' circuit
(PhysOrg.com) -- The technological world of the 21st century owes a tremendous amount to advances in electrical engineering, specifically, the ability to finely control the flow of electrical charges using ...
Spitzer finds solid buckyballs in space
(PhysOrg.com) -- Astronomers using data from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope have, for the first time, discovered buckyballs in a solid form in space. Prior to this discovery, the microscopic carbon spheres ...
Faster than light neutrinos? More like faulty wiring
You can shelf your designs for a warp drive engine (for now) and put the DeLorean back in the garage; it turns out neutrinos may not have broken any cosmic speed limits after all.
Physicists surprised by disappearing and reappearing superconductivity in iron selenium chalcogenides
Superconductivity is a rare physical state in which matter is able to conduct electricity -- maintain a flow of electrons -- without any resistance. This phenomenon can only be found in certain materials at low temperatures, ...
CT colonography shown to be comparable to standard colonoscopy
Computerized tomographic (CT) colonography (CTC), also known as virtual colonoscopy, is comparable to standard colonoscopy in its ability to accurately detect cancer and precancerous polyps in people ages 65 and older, according ...
Stanford research team cracks animated NuCaptcha
(PhysOrg.com) -- The research team from Stanford University, led by Elie Bursztein, that previously had cracked regular CAPTCHAs and then audio CAPTCHAs, now has also successfully cracked the animated version called NuCapt ...
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (20)
Anyway we need more of this kind of research recapitulating past evolution.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1.1 / 5 (48)
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (34)
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 4.9 / 5 (33)
Nobody is suggesting there are centrifuges in nature "under normal circumstances in a vacuum".
All the centrifuge supplied was a convenient way to select for multicell clusters of yeast cells. Presumably many other means of selecting for the same thing will have the same result, a conjecture that will no doubt be tested in follow up research.
And intelligence isn't needed to explain the results. If you pick up a ball you are exercising intelligent control, but once you let go of it the gravity that takes over and any bouncing has nothing to do with your intelligence.
Likewise, it took intelligence to set up this experiment, but once the experimenter started running an automatic system (centrifuge, take samples from bottom of tube, repeat), intelligent judgement is no longer in effect. Whatever DNA selection, mutation and phenotype changes happen are done independently by the yeast and are not planned or designed, they are just observed.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1.1 / 5 (40)
This is not scientific, but emotional language. Ascribing moral behaviour to a single cell is just ludicrous. This is a statement one would expect from the mother earth religion, but not rational and educated people.
Because it never happened in the first place. The experiment was done by human intelligence in an expensive lab. A child can see the difference, but these tax payer paid scientists fail to make that distinction.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (13)
"The answer is stunning: We are so similar to yeast, in some of our genes, that human DNA can be substituted for the equivalent yeast gene- and it works just as well."
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (26)
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (21)
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (16)
10 The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"
11 He replied, "Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand."
-Religionists are like pharasees. If their god exists (he doesn't) then he doesn't write books. He wrote this world for us to understand. But the promises of wish-granting and immortality have hardened their heads against the many lessons their nonexistant god has graciously provided.
Religionists prefer parables to plain, simple Reality. They lack the patience and resolve and courage necessary to appreciate it.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (11)
http://www.nature...89a.html
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1.2 / 5 (27)
Yes, for instance, we are all made of atoms. Wow, that must be proof for a common ancestor.
A logically sound explanation would be that genetic functions are like building blocks that act similarly. That would make sense only in a scenario where an intelligent designer is at work. A random-driven process is more likely to produce more randomized functions.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (17)
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (25)
Bad is subjective. I'd rather every child on earth use those certain words which are considered impolite by some arbitrary standard than a single child be indoctrinated into the nonsense and anti-intellectual and illogical thought processes that go hand in hand with your religious beliefs.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (20)
Not really. Our genes and the yeast genes are nearly identical, making a strong case that our ancestors were single- celled organisms that evolved into larger organisms over many millions of years, and if the earth is four or five billion years old, that's enough time for the thing to get it right- called Man. I don't feel diminished in any way by calling a yeast cell Uncle.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (21)
On that note, the word "fucking" (which is the word I used which you are objecting to) refers to the act of sexual intercourse. The vilification of this act is a religious artifact. There is nothing wrong with sex, there is no reason to be squeamish about it and there is no reason to consider words that refer to it as impolite. The human body is not something to be censored while violence runs rampant in our television programs and movies. It's a misguided moral imperative and hypocrisy to the highest degree.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 4.8 / 5 (16)
Intelligent designer you say? The same intelligence that has brought us the likes of GWB, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman, Rick Perry and so many others who claim to be on a mission from God?
Just exactly what is that mission? You know what don't bother I don't require an explanation. I have had 46 years to make up my mind about the fairy tale you are spreading as the truth. You have exactly zero chance of convincing me of anything at this point so please stop wasting our time.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 4.8 / 5 (16)
Oh, Henrik, it's as if you're inviting punishment. How much has the Catholic Church paid in compensation to the victims of the child-molesting Parish priests? Many millions. A very bad choice to make your point.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (20)
In some genes perhaps. To conclude from that we share a common ancestor through millions of years of evolution is a non sequitur however.
Intelligent design of similar building blocks is also consistent with that observation. It is the more likely hypothesis because it does not require a billion year process that is supposed to create coded information from chance mutations, something never observed.
A Honda civic and accord share the same parts because they are from the same maker, not becasue they share a common ancestor called the Honda ciccord.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1.3 / 5 (29)
That is exactly the problem with atheists, wilfull ignorance. This worldview rests on thin air, but still they claim the rational ground, which is quite irrational. First try to explain why there is such a thing as rationality at all, and where it is generated in the big bang and /or blind evolution.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (22)
No, a very good one indeed. What premisse of my argument have you refuted by giving an example of bad moral behavior? None.
In fact your comment fully supports my claim that objective morals are proof for the existence of God. Something can only be called evil if such moral standards exist. If atheism is true however, you have no ground for calling pedophile priests morally bad. Only if God exists, can we have objective moral values.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (8)
Would you rape a stranger to save your child's life? Suppose your son or daughter had a 9mm to their head and the person holding it told you to rape this person that you had never met before or they would splatter your child's brains all over the wall...
Of course you would do it. My point is, while the application of force against the will of another never "good", sometimes it is preferable to the alternative. Incarcerating the mentally ill when they commit a crime is an example, it is not a "good" thing to take away someones freedom against their will, but it is often necessary for the good of society.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1.1 / 5 (16)
That is not for me to judge. I however know that people like Newton, Pascal and Plato were intelligent, and they all believed in theism.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (11)
Name dropping, the lowest form of argument. Those you mentioned were a product of their times, in those days you either worshiped god or you were sent to the gallows. Who knows how many people back then didn't actually believe, but pretended to out of fear of persecution. Even in modern society many Atheists in a America are afraid to "come out" due to fear of persecution by the fundamentalist zealots that plague this country, such as yourself.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
A bit depressing way of describing a human :-)
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (11)
Your god must be a fucking retard if he considers the human body an intelligent design, considering it is flawed from birth in many ways.
But guess what? While detrimental vestigial structures may be a nail in the coffin of intelligent design evolution gives a perfect explanation for them that is testable and has been confirmed through genetic research.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (14)
No, I would not. It is quite shocking that you are unwilling to acknowledge child rape as something morally evil. Unfortunately these distorted views are what atheism and Darwinism ultimately lead to. Dawkins once said that if evolution had taken a slightly different path, the rape of women could have been completely socially acceptable. And that coming from a professor who is supposed to guide our society.
I think the rational approach is to accept the theist position that some things are just a moral abomination, regardles of biology or majority opinion.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (9)
You would allow your child to be shot in the head rather than engage in the natural act of sexual intercourse and you deign to lecture me about morality?
Get the fuck out of here, you are disgusting to me. You and your ilk vilify sex and the human body and prefer violence and it is disgraceful.
You've shown your true colors.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (11)
Have you ever read a book or taken a degree in something? The complete ignorance of your replies would lead me to believe otherwise. In the time of Plato, many schools of thought existed, and Plato actually went against the prevailing polytheism. Newton wrote more on Bible commentary than on physics, so to say this is out of religious opression is pure folly. In the time of Blaise Pascal, the reformation had already passed and religious tolerance was taken to the US by the pilgrims.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 4.9 / 5 (10)
Was this before or after the pilgrims burned witches at the stake?
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1.3 / 5 (15)
Your mental perversion is what is most telling.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 4.9 / 5 (8)
It doesn't matter what you say anymore, you just told me that you would allow your young child to be shot in the head rather than having sexual intercourse with a stranger... This is shocking though not surprising since the misinformed moral principles of fundamentalist christians in terms of favoring violence over sex (as evident by the television, movie, and video game ratings in this country) is well documented.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (12)
When exactly did you loose your sanity?
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (9)
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 3.1 / 5 (26)
When exactly did you lose this argument?
I'll tell you when, when you said you would rather your kid get shot in the face then rape a stranger. Sex is just sex, but the death of a child is a travesty. It is terrible that you think the one is worse than the other and is not worth preventing it.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (13)
Since you keep insisting, let me tell you that your made up story constitutes the logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
My point was that without God, objective moral values cannot exist. Since sane human beings would agree that (for instance) child rape is an objective moral evil, this is proof that God exists. To deny that child rape is only a subjective evil would imply that in some case it could be acceptable, which is a shockingly irrational position.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (11)
What a twisted argument you've just made. You think atheists can't have morality because they don't fear punishment from above? This is sickening if you represent religious opinion. It seems to me that the Protestant versus Catholic war in Ireland was a black day for religious morality.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (11)
This is just horseshit.
As I already told you, human beings have certain qualities that they all share. One of those qualities is the desire to be free, to not be coerced or forced into doing something they do not want to do. The fact that this exists as a truth universal to our species in no way implies, let alone "proves" (you lunatic) that god exists.
How misinformed and illogical are you?
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (11)
Those are your words, but I did not say that at all. One can come up with all kinds of extreme and fantastical scenario's, but they do nothing to undermine any of my premisses about the moral argument. The fact that we can call anything a moral evil, only makes sense in a theistic universe. None of you have refuted this argument.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 4.9 / 5 (9)
I have, twice now, you are ignoring me... par for the course for you zealots, you have to ignore a hell of a lot to keep up with your ridiculous beliefs.
Oh, and you did say that you would rather let someone shoot your child in the face rather than rape a stranger... I proposed the scenario and said "of course you would rape the stranger" and you said "no I would not"... implying that you would let your child get shot in the face.
Are you confused? This is all in black and white and recorded on a server somewhere and is accessible to anyone here so it makes no sense to lie about it.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1.1 / 5 (12)
So why would it be a bad thing to deny somebody else their freedom in an atheistic universe? By what moral law is it evil to do that? Perhaps by denying other people their freedom I can greatly enhance my survival chances. In a Darwinian scenario, it is perfectly ok to kill or oppress people. Only in a world where God exists, can people be held accountable on a moral basis.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (9)
Morality is based on empathy. Empathy is one's ability to consider themselves in the circumstances of another. If every human has a desire to be free of coercion then every human can rightly assume that others would also prefer to be free of coercion. Moral action is an expression of your sense of empathy combined with the expectation of reciprocal altruism. This is reality, so you will instinctively fight against it in favor of your fairy tale version.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (11)
You have either failed to correctly understand or read the moral argument I made. I have never said atheists can not have morality. They just don't have any explanation for their moral behaviour. In fact, they act against their belief system by living as if objective moral codes exist. Which is all the better for the world of course.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (7)
Wrong. They recognize that they are merely "someone else" to everyone else, so their moral actions towards "someone else" is equivalent to "someone else's" moral actions toward them. In other words, they expect reciprocation, and rightfully so.
Now you're being ignorant, ever heard of Ayn Rand?
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (10)
Why should anyone empathize? Based on what law or code should I have empathy with my detractors? In fact, people who do not value others advance more in society. These so called sociopaths seem to have an evolutionary advantage. So in an atheistic world, there is no reason whatsoever to have empathy with others.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (9)
It's not a choice... it's a property of our consciousness.
You're wrong, reciprocal altruism is the BASIS of a functioning society. Within that system it may be true that individuals can take advantage of others but that only works if the vast majority are altruistic. If everyone decided to take advantage of everyone else and not care about anyone else it would be to the extreme detriment of everyone. This is basic game theory.
You are seriously confused if you think empathy is a choice. Moral actions may be a choice, but empathy is no more a choice than fear.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1.1 / 5 (11)
Based on what? If someone decides to murder a child because he feels to do so out of his subjective morality, an atheist has no ground to condemn this act as morally evil and requiring punishment.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (7)
Of course he does, what are you smoking?
Is this a serious question or are you being intentionally ridiculous? If it is a serious question I'll answer it if not please don't waste my time with this inanity.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (11)
A murderer or rapist also acts from his consciousness. Based on what are you elevating one act of consciousness over the other? General happiness? That is subjective. Minimal suffering? Perhaps the rapist is suffering the most because he cannot rape. So all these artificial grounds for morality ultimately fail beause they offer no objective standard for good and evil. Only God can offer that, not fallible humans.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
A murderer or rapist may be acting contrary to their sense of empathy, I never said that was impossible. It also may be the case that they have a mental disorder that distorts or suppresses that sense of empathy, that is also possible. I don't see the issue here.
Based on overwhelming consensus of the population. That is all there is and that is what we go by. If the majority of the population thought it was a greater injustice to not let the rapist rape then that would be favored.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (9)
That is not an explanation why rape is considered morally evil and worthy of punishment. People do not go to jail for lack of empathy, but because they commited a crime.
Social theory does not explain why there is a moral outcry over henious crimes. Even if society at large is not affected at all by some single act of child molestation, it would still be morally evil. The only way that can be is if there are real objective moral values and duties.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (9)
The general consensus in nazi Germany was that persecuting and killing Jews was acceptable, even by law. Does that consensus make the holocaust morally acceptable? No.
Even if Hitler had convinced the whole earth that Jews are evil and worthy of annihilation, the death camps would have still been a moral abomination. That is because moral absolutes exist, and they are a proof that not human thinking is the foundation of good and evil, but a righteouss and holy God.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (11)
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 3.8 / 5 (5)
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (10)
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (8)
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (8)
Watch some material from Sam Harris on YouTube. He talks about morality based on human well being. Essentially, we can know what makes a human healthy physically, so why not mentally? We can say that raping a child is not conducive to that child's happiness. Is it objective? I don't know. Is it moral to allow the rape a child to save 100 children from rape? I don't know. I don't think so, but it seems to be the lesser of two evils. Objective is a very strong degree of certainty. Morality is difficult because it is not clear cut. Just think about my point before rating my post.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (13)
The answer to the well known Eutyrphro dilemma is that God is Himself good, that is why His laws are also good. One of the aspects of God is goodness.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (9)
Harris position is flawed because happiness is a subjective criterium, and can not be a basis for moral judgement which implies a clear distinction between good and evil. In addition, a person can never confidently predict what level of well being his actions might result in. Some deeds are intended to do good, but end up creating a lot of grief. It is far more logical to base morality on objective criteria.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (12)
No, I believe in the moral laws of Jesus Christ, like love your neigbour and do good to those that hate you. Jesus rebuked those that tried to stone the woman caught in adultery, and asked them if they were without sin.
Having said that, this intention does not mean I always achieve those lofty goals, because all humans are sinners, and in need of redemption. To admit that one is a sinner is one of the greatest acts of achieving personal freedom, because it opens the possibility of forgiveness as well as guilt and fear free living.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 4.9 / 5 (9)
Jesus of the Bible said that he came to uphold the law, not do away with it. That not until heaven and Earth passed away would a jot or tittle of the law be done away with. But even if Jesus had replaced the old law, then that implies that there was a faulty system put in place by God that required replacing. Thus, at one time or another, the God of the Bible considered such actions moral, even necessary, as he made them commandments. And that he realized he'd made a mistake with the old law, changed his mind, or was incapable of changing in for a substantial amount of time. Which means he was wrong, easily swayed, or not all-powerful. If any of these are the case, he is not divine, not perfect, and not an authority worthy of making an eternal law.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (12)
There is no logical contradiction between the existence of a loving, omnipotent God and the existence of evil. A good God may have sufficient reasons for allowing evil to exist at least for a time, and human fee will in itself is an explantion for why there is evil at all.
In addition, God has set a limit on evil because He will one day renew the earth and reign over it. His love is manifested in the death of Jesus on the cross which is sufficient atonement for all human sin.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (12)
Yes, and perhaps He had sufficient reaons for it at the time. God is not just everyone's friend. He is also holy and sins are abhorrent to Him. Only people who deliberately sin and violate Gods laws should fear Him. It is completely acceptable fo a divine Judge to hold His own creation accountable. That is exactly what a human judge does when he upholds the law.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (8)
Oh, you're a sinner alright, Henrik, falling for all of that forgiveness tripe. And I hope you don't love thy neighbour too much either, for your sake, not God's. Were you scolded as a child for having natural impulses? Very often, traumatic experiences manifest themselves as religious fervor. I think you'd benefit from a secular therapist.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (8)
"My point was that without God, objective moral values cannot exist."
Assuming this to be true, how do you explain the extremely peaceful nature of Scandinavian countries (known to be home to a big number of atheists and religion is certainly not taken serious by most people) compared to US (where most people are religious and religion plays a big role in most areas of the country)? While you are at it, some light on the fact that the last horrific crime against humanity in those countries was committed by a fundamentalist Christian in Norway, who killed 80 young students, would be nice. Thanks in advance for insights you will provide on this.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1.1 / 5 (11)
This is a false trilemma. There is another alternative, which is that God made a plan beforehand to create a world of free beings, who could sin. But in His infinite wisdom He also forsaw the need for a redeemer and an eternal solution for sin. That shows Gods grandeur, love and power in one.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (7)
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (7)
Or he could just have not created sin. Simple. Because if God is the origination of all things, that includes evil, and an all-powerful being should have control over it. I am already convinced that he is not worthy of worship for the simple reason that the rules can change according to his will. If they were perfect to begin with, and truly GOOD, then there would be no reason for change. Also, being free does not include infinite punishment for finite actions.
Also, in what possible scenario could there be that would make rape of an innocent and then subsequently forcing said victim to marry her rapist in any way a moral action? Please fill me in, as I would really like to know.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (9)
These events only prove one thing: that people are sinners. In the case of countries like Norway, I would say the pleasant socio-economical situation and the introvert temperament of the people plays a role. To call Breivik a Christian is I think too much honour for him. From what I read in the news in his writings he calls himself a cultural Christian, but he did not have or profess a personal faith in Jesus Christ and neither was he born again. Those are essential elements of the gospel however.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (11)
The premisse here is wrong. God did not create sin. The Bible equates sin with darkness, and disobedience. Darkness is the absence of light, and disobedience a lack of obedience to the laws. God created the light and the law, but not the disobedience.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (14)
There are excellent and valid arguments for the existence of God. Theism is more rational than atheism. To name but a few, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument which we discussed, the ontological argument and for instance the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the best explanation for the emergence of the early church and the experiences, beliefs and lives of the apostles.
But by far the best argument for Gods existence is if He becomes a personal reality to an individual by revealing Himself to that person by faith. God can change lives like nothing else.
(Contrary, a belief in atheism rests on no sound argument at all, and a belief in atheism leads to all kinds of logical contradictions).
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 2.4 / 5 (47)
Please delete Henrik's posts and suspend his account.
Thank you.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (8)
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (3)
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (10)
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 2.1 / 5 (46)
MODERATORS: Please enforce your guidelines. Thank you.
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Jan 16, 2012
Rank: 4.9 / 5 (8)
Well apparently you've answered your own question, they are having sex.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (7)
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (9)
Also, FYI, personal testimony is NOT evidence. I could claim to have a purple dinosaur in my bathroom. I know, because I have a "personal relationship" with him. You should believe me simply because I say so!
On the contrary, belief in any religious dogma is illogical. Christianity included. Atheism is the default position for mankind, as no one is religious without indoctrination. Human nature demands (for the most part) good reasons in order to form a belief. You have provided no good reasons. Just flawed arguments that dance around the issue
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (7)
Not at all.
We live in social groups.
If all of us acted only in our personal interest, (using group resources/advantage and not contributing), the group would have no benefit, and cease to exist.
For the social group to keep working, it need rules to negociate individual and common interest.
One such rule is to forbid someone to abuse someone else without penalties.
You don't need a god to think life in community is better if abuse is forbidden.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (16)
Just looking at everything you have posted it is quite clear just how mixed up your thoughts get. First you say it's OK to have no rules with regards to speech - and that then implies it's OK to do as one pleases. Then you want to talk about "the good of society". Please make up your mind. If everyone does as s/he pleases then there can only be anarchy and even more death, pain and suffering then we already have. Besides which, where do you get the idea of "good" from? By which atheistic definition is there any "good"? Who is the ultimate arbiter of what "good" is? Is that the person/people with the most force? Without God,the ultimate center of truth, there is no rational thought
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (8)
Good is survival. Bad is extinction. You may not like it, but 'that's life'.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 3 / 5 (5)
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (11)
By what reasoning do you see a 'good chance' for this?
At least we don't simply make up some explanation - we go out, form a hypothesis and then test it (as the scientists in the article did).
Now you go out and find me that intelligent creator you keep blabbing about. Then we'll talk.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (7)
So there ya go. A universal moral principle that doesn't invoke some invisible sky fairy. People without empathy can still choose to be moral, and many often do. Empathy drives morality. But Reason steers.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (7)
-If multi-cellular life is easy to produce through evolution, it seems that the increase of oxygen in the atmosphere ca. 600 million years ago was the crucial event that paved the way for complex life. In an unrelated article, the evolution of two symbiotic organisms (both unicellular, one inside the other) implies the step to eukaryotes was likewise not that difficult. No god or "black monolith" required.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (11)
Then again, people may choose otherwise freely based on their own subjective morals. Morality of course is not a personal choice, but an obligation. Empathy is a subjective experience. Lack of empathy is not a crime, murder and rape are crimes. This is because these actions violate objective moral codes. These codes can only exist if God exists. Atheism however can offer no foundation for moral obligations.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (12)
Darwinian evolution of ape like creatures into man cannot be tested, because it is an event in the distant past inaccessible for present day experiments. Only indirect observations remain such as for every historical event. Darwinian evolution therefore can only be made plausible, but never proven fact such as gravity or water freezing into ice.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (11)
So if the nazi's had succeeded in eradicating the Jewish people, they could be considered "good" in Darwinian terms? That would make the holocaust "evolution in action".
This kind of pseudo-rationality shows the corruption that evolutionary thinking leads to. Then again, famous evolutionists like Darwin, Haeckel and Keith were racists.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (8)
Don't confuse 'good' in a moral sense with 'good' in a Darwinian sense.
In evolution there are no prizes for the moral high ground if it means you go extinct in the process. Evolution just weeds out those who are successful against those that are not - and what makes a successful species is not at all a clear cut case.
Is humanity a successful species because it is in existence now? Or were dinosaurs, though extinct, more successful because they were around 20 million years whereas man has had a scant 100000 year run?
Evolution has nothing to do with morals. If you get right down to it: there is no value system in the universe. The universe doesn't care whether anything is 'alive' or not. 'Life' is just an arbitrary definition made up by living things, anyhow. Recursive and therefore utterly meaningless outside its own context.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 4 / 5 (1)
That was a dumb comment .One who doesn't know there's a difference between selective breeding or euthanasia and evolution by natural selection and yet will profusely comment on a biological post on physorg.
What the nazi's did was more akin to artificial selection or ID than Darwinian evolution
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (10)
Thank you for that confession. I hope you understand that this view of life's purpose is utterly self-defeating. If human definitions are just self made constructs then your worldview is included. You have no way of finding out if your atheism is true, because it cannot be validated against an objective standard of truth. So if absolute truth does not exist (which your views imply), then atheism itself must also be meaningless and false.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (9)
Truth is not a property of atheism. That would be like claiming that something non-existent exists.
Theism is a non-issue until there is some indication that it exists (i.e. until some evidence is forthcoming).
It's like frodlumgsudism. If I claim that frodlumgsudism is real then I have to furnish proof that it is. It is not up to you to show that frodlumgsudism doesn't exist because before I brought up the subject of frodlumgsudism you weren't even aware that it is an issue at all.
Therefore you had no need for having an opinion on it (or need to show the truth of its absence).
It was a non-issue to you until I brought it up. And until I give you a good reason for frodlumgsudism it remains a non issue to you.
Similarly atheism is the ABSENCE of belief. It needs show nothing until you show that theism is an issue at all. Before you manage that theism remains irrelevant.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (10)
Thank you for confirming my point. There are many valid arguments for the existence of God. There is no valid argument for the hypothesis that God does not exist.
I recommend that things like personal faith or a lack of it are kept out of the discussion. Using words like belief have no part in a rational discussion about the existence of God.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (11)
Again atheists are self-contradicting. Just a while ago your folks posted that life is just chemistry. Nazi's, Jews and the holocaust are all part of this universe and this life. So by your own definition they are subject to evolution.
Now you hopefully see that atheism is in trouble every time it wants to make a logical assertion. Logic is immaterial, and only exists because God exists. In an atheistic universe rational thought is impossible, because thought is just meaningless brain chemistry.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (6)
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (9)
There does not need to be unless and until you have ONE good argument for a god (of any kind). Since no such argument has ever been found we're not really holding our breaths on that one.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that there is a god is a VERY extraordinary one.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Henri
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
Let us take one step at the time. At least, that is the more rational approach. First one can establish that theism is more plausible than the opposite. The next step would indeed be to try and find out what form of theism is most plausible.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (13)
Atheism is the belief that reality consists solely of material things such as space, time and energy. To make atheism a plausible world view, the atheist must do two things:
1. Convincinly refute every valid argument for the existence of God
2. Make atheism plausible by providing their own sound arguments
That is the rational path to take. Any other strategy such as a form of name calling, sophistry, use of logical fallacies or hand waving is not part of this. So atheists still have a chance to make their doctrine plausible once they start using logical arguments. Then everyone can see for himself where the evidence leads to.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (11)
NO, atheism is the belief that God does not exist. You need to get your definitions straight. What you are describing is naturalism, which is completely independent from atheism. And once again, the burden of proof is on YOU, not atheists.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (8)
errrr.... no. First one can demonstrate that god(s) exist (or ever existed), and that he/she/it/they were, in fact, responsible for all the stuff you claim they've done (like creating life, the universe,etc). Until that happens, I'll stick with the evolution thing.
The next step is just religion, and I wouldn't be interest either way.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (10)
The one implies the other. Naturalism implies atheism, because naturalism denies the existence of any supernatural entities such as God or spirits. If you do not believe that, then you are not an atheist but an agnostic.
To say that atheism does not require proof, is a logical fallacy. A belief is only rational if it rests on sound arguments. You may disagree with me, but then you should stop laying claim on rational thought.
Some atheists say that they have not seen any evidence for the existence of God. Then my reply is that absence of proof is not proof of absence. To conclude that God does not exist for lack of personal belief is at best philosophically lazy thinking. But its a free world.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
I guess as an atheist you are not willing to take up this challenge? If you are not willing to defend your beliefs through rational and logical arguments, then what is the supposed veracity of your worldview based on?
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (10)
No.
For the very simple reason: If theism didn't exist atheists would not exist. If atheism was an ACTIVE disbelief in gods (i.e. a conscious choice against gods) it would be a state whether theism had ever been declared or not.
Atheism is not a stance. It's the absence of a stance.
No. Atheism is simply the absence of acknowledging the issue of gods. Period.
Oh. This one I've GOT to hear. Explain. Please. Do.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (7)
All religions claim morality comes directly from their god and that it would not exist without their god. All religions claim that their god is the epitome ogf goodness. And yet all religions teach the rejection of other gods. 'No other gods before me' is invariably their first and most important commandment.
Their books go on to condone breaking all their moral laws in defense of their god against unbelievers. Every religion does this. The ones who didnt didn't survive because their adherents were exterminated.
Religions claim to be the source of morality simply so they can break their moral laws against their enemies, with the full approval of their god.
All the successful religions also enforce the edict to 'fill up the world' at the expense of their enemies. These 2 conditions ensure a world FULL of unremittant violence and immorality of the worst sort.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
The People who concocted your pleasant little fairy tales henrik cared nothing about what happened to you once you were dead. They cared a great deal about what you thought and did while you and all your cohorts were still alive. Onward xian soldier.
Jesus came to bring not peace but a sword you know? He intended you to be slaughtering your family members and presenting yourself for martyrdom because humanity desperately needed Managing, and this was absolutely the Only Way to do it.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
That is quite vague and open to many interpretations. One should be able to provide a clear statement of one's worldview. To avoid any definition problem, it is good to turn to a reputable source like a dictionary.
Webster: atheism
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
The first might be called positive atheism, the second negative atheism or anti-theism. Especially anti-theism should be based on sound arguments, because it is a strong assertion.
Maybe that is why Dawkins bus campaign slogan read: there is probably no God...Atheism here is presented by Dawkins as a belief in certain probabilities. When something is considered probable, one should be able to explain why.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (8)
I am curious what your idea of a rational discussion is then?
Do you have some scientific evidence for the existence of God that doesn't rest of Faith or Belief? I must've missed it? Did he like His fingerprints somewhere?
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (8)
That is one of the funniest things I've ever read. That's made my day, it really has.
As for the article: really interesting. Needs a lot more testing, which I look forward to reading about in the hopefully not-too-distant future. :)
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (8)
Cop out much?
Again I ask you point blank:
1) Were you an anti-frodlumgsudist BEFORE I brought up frodlumgsudism?
If you were: How were you aware of the issue of frodlumgsudism BEFORE I brought it up? (quite impossible because I made it up)
If you were not: Then you have just acknowledged that to be anti anything that thing first has to be made an issue of by someone.
So how can there be anti-frodlumgsudists if no frodlumgsudists exist? It's pretty clear who has to supply proof first. Because if we follow your weird mode of thought then YOU would have to prove to me why you are anti-frodlumgsudist before I even tell you what the reasons for frodlumgsudism is.
Now replace frodlumgsudism with 'god'/'theism'. Very simple logic.
2) Why is theism more plausible than atheism?
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
Implications are not definitions. Your logic about atheism and naturalism being interchangeable is faulty and just plain wrong. If atheism depended on naturalism, there would not be atheists who believed in ghosts. Atheism is a LACK OF BELIEF IN GODS, not everything supernatural. Why is this difficult for you to understand? You do not hold this mindset, so who are you to define it in the first place?
"To say that atheism does not require proof, is a logical fallacy." Um, no. Atheism makes no claims, so we have nothing to prove. Would you send someone to jail on the charge of rape simply because there's no evidence that he isn't a rapist? Doubtful. Atheists make no positive claims, thus we require evidence in order to establish a belief in positive claims.
You're right. "Absence of proof is not proof of absence." So why don't we all believe in unicorns and monsters and purple flying hamsters? There's no evidence that says they don't exist. What have you to lose?
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (9)
Well, it does. Otherwise, how would you call this statement:
- There's probably no God -
(2009 atheist Bus campaign by Dawkins foundation)
Tourette's syndrom? So my first question would be: why do you think that is credible? If the answer is only: I have not seen any evidence for God, then an atheist has very little to offer in terms of rational arguments. The bus slogan should then have read: I, R. Dawkins, lack any evidence for making any convincing statement regarding the existence of God.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
Well, for one I think they should be careful around other atheists. Their lifetime membership of the atheist society might be revoked for believing in superstition. An atheist who believes in anything supernatural, breaks the atheist dogma and could be called a heretic.
Remember when the late and famous atheist Anthony Flew announced that he started to have reservations about the truth of atheism, it were his former atheist friends who treated him with the utmost contempt. But that just shows you their paper thin morals.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
Because unlike atheism, theism is supported by credible and valid arguments. These arguments come from the area of cosmology, physics, psychology, geology, biology, philosophy and history to name but a few.
Whereas in the history of mankind, no atheist has ever come up with a valid argument against the existence of God.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
Sometimes you wonder why some theists are afraid of atheists. Looking at their level of rationality, you wonder where they got the idea they are the sane ones. It looks like 300 years of enlightenment just went straight passed and has skipped over this entrire generation.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
A positive claim would be "There is no God" or "God does not exist." The inclusion of probabilities means that the speaker makes no definitive claim, can be swayed based on changing evidence, and thus, it is neither positive nor negative. Saying over and over again that it is does not make it so.
So you concede my point. You are sadly mistaken if you believe all atheists deny the existence of anything supernatural. Also, you have no merit in saying how you think other naturalist atheists should behave toward non-naturalist atheists. The fact that you believe atheists have a dogma that we follow is simply mind-numbing and exemplary of your naivete. It is clear you don't know what you're talking about, and you really need to educate yourself about opposing worldviews if you expect to be taken seriously.
Continuing to insist that there is physical evidence for your God does not make it so. Produce it.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (43)
Please delete Henrik's posts and suspend his account.
Thank you.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (4)
These are important issues which need discussing. Henrik is not some dimwit flooder and he doesnt need to be harassed. His views need to be addressed.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
You mentioned in a response to antialias that you wanted an objective standard to judge truth and morality. Tough. There isn't one, or at least not one humans have access to. The best we can do is inter-subjectivity. There is no objective Truth. There is only social truth.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
You have missed the point of my contention in it's entirety. I am not defending this or that religion. The history of religion has little or no consequence for the existence of God. There is no logical connection between the various manifestations of religious zeal and the existence of a deity.
I am fully aware of Dawkins arguments from his books. He does not provide any arguments for atheism, nor does he refute any existing theistic arguments convincingly. His main point over and over again is a form of social criticism of religion based on a certain style of representing religious beliefs.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
Is this statement an objective truth? If so, then it is false. If not so, then it is false as well. I have told you before that atheism is self-refuting in its foundation.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
The origins of morality can be found in the dynamics of the tribe; those being altruism toward fellow members along with concerted animosity toward outsiders. Those tribes which exhibited these traits would prevail in competition with other tribes and so were selected for.
Here you go thrash - read something relevant.
http://rechten.el...RID2.pdf
The tribal nature of humans is wholly biological and thus so is morality. Religions were able to institutionalize this dynamic and apply it artificially over ever larger and disparate groups.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Unsere Sohn Adolf
U.S.A.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
HAHAHAHAHAHA. Blatant lies.
Stop deflecting and answer the question. Regarding your whole "you can't have subjective morality" thing, animals don't like it when they get hurt and resent whatever hurts them. Animals don't even have the mental capacity to think about gods, so game, set, and match.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Internal altruism coupled with external animosity - how better can we describe the structure of religion? The OT described this succinctly. Its lessons were of conquest. The NT describes the mechanics of revolution, of conquest from within. For what is a revolution without martyrs?
The jesus character is the greatest martyr of all time. By his example millions presented themselves for killing. Because of this the NT is implicated in far more violence than the OT.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
"I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" (Immanuel Kant).
http://plato.stan...eligion/
-See if you would research before you post you would save yourself some embarrassment.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
I tried the theist thing. As I grew older, it all seemed way too illogical. I tried to fight my brain and convince myself I was a believer, but it's difficult to argue with logic. I definitely felt more free than ever, even when I was baptized.
However, I'm a moral person. My morals surely differ from yours, as I don't see a problem with premarital sex and don't think rape victims should marry their rapist or that slavery is OK, but I try to do what is right. I'm sure you've heard this, but:
"Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told - religion is doing what you are told regardless of what is right."
Call me strange, but I don't need a reward or threat to do the right thing. I do the right thing so I don't feel like an asshole, and hoping others would do the same.
You're surely just trolling...
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
Oh please. Do you really want to begin yet another cascade of logical fallacies? Do you even read what you've typed before you submit it?
So by your logic, something can be both objectively true and false simultaneously? I'd be interested to see how you would explain away that one.
I think it's a given that something objectively false is, in fact, false. :P
I would like to think that I know where you're going with this, and that I can accurately interpret inane fundamentalist drabble. However, the more pressing matter is that you are still trying to avoid meeting your burden of proof. I suggest that you are start procuring that physical and cosmological evidence for God, like many of us have asked you to do multiple times, before your trollish behind is exposed.
Atheists don't have to refute you. You've done at least that much already, many times over.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
Check your facts, this is a blatant lie. The majority of the people didn't know what was happening because Hitler organized his underlings so that each only had knowledge of the small part that they played. The general population had no idea what was going on. It is patently false that the majority of Germans thought it was okay to murder innocents.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (3)
So we admit that, due to pragmatism or whatever, kants dogmae, by his own admission ('in order to make room for faith') was tainted, and that it is impossible to discern which might be so tainted and which might not? Of course it isnt.
And as he had no knowledge of the evolutionary source of human motivation, as we do today, he was ONLY GUESSING.
And he was most assuredly selling a particular Weltanschauung to the educated elite, in other words, propagandizing, as the church was itself doing to the other classes as well.
Besides youre off-topic as usual. Philocrap is dead per science and hawking.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
"Wir haben es nicht gewusst"? Historians have debunked that lie a long time ago. Check your facts. Germans either knew or could have known. Most chose to suppress that knowledge.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
Let me repeat step by step as to not confuse you. You say: "there are no objective truths". Lets assume that statement is true. If no objective truths exist, then also the statement "there is no objective truth" is not objectively true (because no such truths exist). That means it could be false. If the statement "there is no objective truth" can be false, this means there is actually an objective truth, contradicting the statement.
Contrary, if the statement is false, then objective truths do exist which contradicts the statement "there is no objective truth", making it false.
So either way, your statement leads to a self-contradiction. Its the same as if an atheist would say: all atheists are liars. Is he right or wrong? The denial of objective truth leads to a logical impossibility, which is at the core of atheism.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
I'm sorry, but I think you're confusing yourself. I never said there was no objective truth. I stated earlier that there was no objective morality, but that has nothing to do with objective truth. Big difference. However, if something is objectively true (these truths do exist in nature as constants) then it is true regardless of whether or not the statement objectifying the subject is true. Regardless of whether or not the observer can witness the truth in its absolute objectivity, as subjective experience is independent of objective absolution. You've caught yourself in a never-ending cascade of seemingly falsifiable statements regarding objective truth, because the contradiction to the statement (that there are indeed objective truths) could also be false if no objective truth exists.
Like I said, it's not my statement. Go back and check again who you are supposed to be addressing.
And once again, you're attempting to skirt around my request. Pay up, or GTFO.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
You seem to have a problem controlling your impulses. Perhaps a lack of social skills. Could that be the reason why your life is such an unfruitful disappointment so far? I recommend some good Christian therapy.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
The only impulse I have is my overwhelming desire to witness demonstrable evidence for the existence of God from a self-pronounced expert on the subject, without being subjected to unintelligent and unecessary ad hominem attacks.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
We need no ethics based on superstition, and we dont need to believe they come from some aetherial plane of existence.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
Why?
Henrik's rationality starts with God.
If you want to reach the Henriks you must go where your rationality stops. Good luck.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
You're just an average jerk. You have spent an entire day arguing about what? Nobody knows what happens after we die except you. You must be god's gift to all of us - as you have infered in many of your posts.
Guess what? You haven't changed anyone's minds about anything here. That's because you're a fake.
Instead of spending all day arguing, you could have been helping someone who needs help. Instead, you choose to waste your time master baaating your own ego.
Job well done. The guy who went to India to learn buddhism then came back to Jerusalem to engage in tantra judism would be not be proud.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Lets recap.
Creationist Evanglists convert: 0 people.
Time spent trying: 20 hours.
Look who's talking about failure.
People get tired of arguing with idiots, however in typical religious wingnut fashion, that is interpreted as winning.
That's right you spent 20 hours of your life that you can never get back not convincing anyone. Meanwhile, atheists are working in the hospitals and hospices. Typical.
Jan 17, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
Again you cop out. I asked you to name a sepcific one. ONE. Just one that is proof (or even an indication) that there is a god as opposed to no god.
Give one indication that positing something as unbelievably complex as an omnipotent, superintelligent, omniscient being makes explaining what we observe simpler or more reasonable than very simple natural processes.
But all I see is you floundering about. You know what? I'm pretty sure you don't even know - in your own heart - what you're talking about. All you're doing right now is defending some (as you now come to see) false belief because you have already wasted the majority of your life on it.
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
The appendix is not a good example. It does have a use. There is an interesting theory that it serves as a reservoir for our gut bacteria. This helps them repopulate the intestinal tract after a bout of diarrhea.
There are other vestigial structures (tail bone, plica luminaris, arrector pili) which seem to be remnants from our ancestorsand which have no use for us today. in nimals there are many such vestigial structures (vestigial hip bones and hind legs in some snakes. Vestigial leg structures in whales, ... )
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
God is not a good example. God does have a use. There is an interesting theory that God exists(!) and serves(!) as a reservoir for our gut feelings (faith). This helps the faithless regain the tract of faith that is purged daily by disbelievers.
There are other vestigial gods, (Greek, Swedish, Germanic, etc.) which seem to be remnants from our irrational(!)ancestors and which have no use for us today.
All in fun, AP.
If humans reach the longevity of the dinosaur era - 200 million years - and God does not become superseded and obsolete - we deserve and have earned a dinosaur's outcome:
extinction.
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
As George Carlin said, "If this is the best he can do, I'm not impressed. Results like these are not what I would expect from a supreme being; more like an office temp with a bad attitude."
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
The validity of every argument depends on the plausibility of it's premises. Your argument against design is very weak, because it relies on the premise that mankind is the best possible design God could come up with. For this assertion to be true, you would have to know God's mind and plan with the human race. So the burden of proof is on you to show that mankind's current condition is a result of God's full intention and/or best efforts. For instance, it is completely possible that the human condition is not a reflection of God's final plan.
In that case you have nothing but a logical fallacy. For instance, most religions and certainly Christianity do not assume at all that the human kind is the final product. So there you go.
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
1: I don't think anyone thinks that the human mind is the "alpha and omega"... whatever that means.
2: There is no reason to assume that absolute objective knowledge can be gained by humans, and there is no reason to assume that that limitation means that there is a god... that is fallacious logic.
Most of your arguments are based on various mischaracterizations of what atheists/agnostics think. You have to know your enemy to successfully combat them, and you apparently don't know the first thing about people that don't believe in god.
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
That is not what I am saying. Read carefully. My point is that for your argument against design to be valid, it's premise has to be made plausible. You have to provide proof that the current human condition reflects God's final plan and full intention with the human race. If you can't, then the argument is at best just a straw man.
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
Why would God be complex? The definition of God is a bodyless, immaterial Mind, which is a remarkable simple concept. God has no interacting parts or functions like a machine. My contention is that God is actually simple.
You are just confusing the thoughts and actions of God (which can be very complex indeed) and the essence or nature of God (which is quite simple). So the burden of proof that God is complex is completely on you.
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
You're argument is that god's design of humans is not the "final plan"... this implies that god intentionally designed humans with flaws that he may or may not fix at some later time...
I asked you to give me a reason or motivation that you, as a human, might intentionally design flaws into something that you produce. Are you refusing to answer?
Furthermore, the burden of proof is CLEARLY on you since you are the one proposing the existence of a being of unimaginable complexity for which there is zero credible evidence.
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
What kind of horseshit is this? I don't think you understand what complexity means... any "thing" that can create the universe must be complex. Anything that can create complexity must be complex itself.
Complexity, FYI, is given by entropy. If you don't understand that wait a few more hours and look up entropy on wiki...
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
No, I have answered you by pointing out that, unless you are willing to provide proof for the premise of your argument, it presents a logical fallacy. If you have a problem understanding that, then perhaps you must pick up a book on logic first.
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
Proof?
(Remember we are trying to have a rational debate)
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
First of all I did not make that argument. You made the assertion against design. I am not under any obligation to help you formulate your own arguments.
But secondly, this statement is a non sequitur. If the human condition does not reflect Gods full and final intention with mankind, it does not follow logically that God intentionally designed a flawed being. I hope you can see that.
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
It's axiomatic you lunatic.
If you don't think humans are designed ideally currently, which we clearly are not, then you either think god made a mistake or god intentionally designed us with a flaw. These are the only two options.
So which is it, did god make a mistake or did god intentionally design humans with not one but many flaws?
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
Now you're trolling, or you are more insane than I thought.
There are only two options if you agree that human beings are flawed, which we clearly are.
1 - God made mistakes in our design.
2 - God intentionally designed us with the flaws that we possess (wisdom teeth being the example I am running with).
There are no other options, so which is it?
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
No, you are presenting a false dilemma. There are at least two additional options:
1. God is not finished with creation yet.
This option includes all scenario's in which God has chosen to use some form of natural evolution to move towards a future and more ideal design.
2. God has created mankind perfectly, or at least very good, but through some other factor corruption entered the otherwise good design.
In both cases, God may have sufficient reasons to allow this corruption to last until He implements His final and perfect plan.
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
No it is not. And anger is a sign of weakness. Try to stay polite and rational if you can. Be blessed.
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
Yet here I live, and in this time I had to have 4 teeth surgically extracted from my skull. Ergo, god intentionally designed ME with a flaw, or god made a mistake in designing ME.
Oh so now you believe in evolution? How quickly you abandon your own nonsense when pressed...
In this case god made a mistake, part of the design is to anticipate things like this. I can design a car that looks awesome that falls apart when it hits a pothole... you're saying that's a good design just because potholes weren't anticipated?
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
You're right I am angry, the shit you peddle is both an insult to the extremely intelligent people who devote their entire lives to the pursuit of knowledge and the advancement of the human race and also a dangerous message intended to spread a plague of ignorance to the unknowing and impressionable. So yes, it makes me angry when someone tries to convince others of their utter nonsense to the detriment of our society.
...and anger is not a sign of weakness, it is a sign of humanity.
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
Scientists replicate key CREATION step in life on earth
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
Does it bother you that you are not the finished product and work on you is still ongoing?
Non sequitur.
Try to distinguish between arguments and beliefs.
The car manufacturer is not responsible for the damage when the driver knows the instructions but decides to run his vehicle into a brick wall.
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
Now you have become the drama queen of Physorg. My contention is rather that you are angry because your initial air of superiority has been checked, and that makes you mad. Let the reader decide which is more likely.
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (7)
It bothers your argument, that's why you are deflecting.
I am a human, and I am alive, and I am flawed. Either your god designed me with flaws intentionally or your god made a mistake.
Which is it?
Do you make a habit of making arguments that you don't even believe yourself?
That wasn't the analogy.
God didn't just design the car, he designed the roads, and everything else. You think god designed everything, so if god designed everything and humans still have too many teeth to fit in their mouth he either intentionally designed us with that flaw or he made a mistake in his design of us or of our environment if it was caused by the environment.
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (8)
I, the reader, deduce that the writer of the above quote be far too intellectually inferior to carry on an intelligent conversation with people who actually know what the heck they're talking about.
I, the reader, also suggest that said commenter educate himself before he makes a fool of himself any further.
http://talkorigin...indexcc/
Have fun.
P.S. Where's that evidence? We're going on nearly 24 hours with no response.
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
First, I'd like to state that the idea that humans are somehow responsible for our own biological flaws is lunacy...
Second, we can move this discussion right along to free will if you would like, and I will tell you that free will is impossible given an omniscient god, so you tell me, does free will not exist or is god not omniscient?
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
Either way, the bible is wrong. I don't know if you are particularly arguing in favor of the judeo-christian god or some other god of your own delusions, but any way you slice it god cannot be a perfect being, but a flawed being, so why call him god instead of "alien"
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (9)
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
But this is not how it LOOKS. We examine humanity and the fossil record and we can see a clear progression of changes which resulted in our current configuration.
We see these vestigial items within us and within other animals and we can clearly discern in most cases what functions they used to serve and why they are no longer needed.
There is no indication that these were ADDED to either humans or whales or snakes et al, and whether we or they ever existed in a more perfect state at any time in the past.
Henriks god left this evidence for us to examine. It tells us a very clear and consistant story. If his god fabricated this evidence in order to mislead us then he is indeed a very deceptive god. Perhaps he and satan had so much fun with Job they thought they would replay the joke?
Jan 18, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
We examine the archeological and geologic records and we can see that the bible stories are fabrications as well. No flood, no exodus, no solomonic/davidic kingdoms, no genocidal joshuan rampage... nothing.
And so what are we to conclude about the story of our fall from grace and our resultant bad backs, wisdom teeth, and PMS? Your god has a proven record of flummery. What have you to say in his defense?
If he lied about the Red Sea/sea of reeds and jericho, then how can we possibly swallow that nonsense about immortality and preferential wish-granting?
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Yeah Deathclock; quit growing wisdom teeth!
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
Basically, he knowingly created situations that would lead to our eternal punishment, unless we decide to throw out logic and tangible evidence to believe he exists. Oh, lard, thou art so awesome and loving!
No thanks. I prefer to just rot in the ground.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Assuming that god exists, he is f**king with us. That is not very nice, so I would have to conclude that god is really EVIL (sound of rolling thunder). As I have seen no evidence of the existance of "god", the only thing that remains is a remote possibility of beings superior to humankind on some planet waaay out there...or not.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Also, Henrik, your level of crazy is rather appealing. Evolutionarily speaking, of course.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Q would be a lot more fun to have as a ghod. Much more fun than Henrik's boring outdated ghod. I'll believe in any ghod portrayed by John De Lancie...or that's made of wood.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
This is yet another non sequitur. There is no logical contradiction between an all knowing God and the creation of humans as beings of free will. It is in fact quite possible that God would know the free willed response of every person under every circumstance in advance. This way God respects the free will of every human being, and at the same time is in full control.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Not al all. The existence of sin is a necessary by-product of the creation of autonomous beings who have the free will to obey or disobey God. According to the Bible, God did warn Adam and Eve about the terrible consequence if sin. They decided to ignore that warning and sin anyway.
However, in His wisdom God planned to take on flesh one day and suffer for all sins so His creation could walk away free. That is why He said: let us create man in our own image. That image is Jesus Christ.
Naturally born human beings are not created in this image yet, so work on us is still ongoing until we freely decide to either reject or accept the image of Christ.
Those people who freely reject Christ will not be able to enter heaven, which is Gods final and perfect design of the universe. These people have chosen to suffer an eternal life of sin away from the God they have freely rejected.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
No, the answer is that humans commit sin out of their own free will. God has done His part throughout history to redeem people. These stories can (in condensed form) be found in the Bible. His final offer is His own flesh and blood Jesus.
There is no logical contradiction between the existence of evil and God being perfect and good. Atheists have tried to find that connection, but have failed. God may have perfectly sound reasons to allow evil to exist for a limited amount of time. As soon as God has implemented His eternal plan of perfection, sin and evil will be an infinitesimally small event in light of the eternity that is to come.
Every human being has the complete free will to spend eternity suffering in sin in hell or rejoicing in righteoussness in heaven. All the information is available, so no person can accuse God when he is shut out of heaven on the day of resurrection. God can simply say: I do not know you because you rejected me first.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
26 Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it."
Adam was perfect and immortal. His punishment for eating of the tree was mortality and suffering.
"17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."
-The book is very clear on this.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
You choose in your audacity to reinterpret the word of god. So do many many others EXACTLY like you, and you all interpret it differently.
And to boot, none of you nor even the book itself can correctly interpret what must be gods final and most perfect word of all - the natural world. The book fails miserably to describe it.
The book even fails to describe what scientists can find out for themselves about the stories in the book, simply by digging around and looking for evidence that they actually happened. They find nothing. The stories are all false.
How do you interpret this most embarrassing disconnect henrik?
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
You ask for Atheists to "Convincinly refute every valid argument for the existence of God".
Toss some of those 'valid' arguments out there. Please ensure you only include the valid ones.
As a side request, please do not quote a random part of this post that has nothing to do with the request and respond to it instead, ignoring the request entirely. A large portion of your responses have been exactly that, and I would like to avoid it if at all possible. Thank you.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
The topic of Bible inerrancy is an interesting, but totally different matter alltogether. This thread so far is concerned with the fact that a belief in the existence of God is based on solid, rational arguments. In fact the existence of God is necessary to prevent the universe becoming utterly meaningless, a-moral and inexplicable.
But to give just a brief response. I think there are very good reasons to assume that the Bible stories of Genesis are in fact historical rather than mythical or metaphorical. The reason is that the Bible material is at least generally consistent with the natural. But I do not exclude the possibility that for instance the creation account is a meta-narrative.
But all this is irrelevant for the existence of God and His final plan with the universe and humanity. Those plans we can infer just as well from the words of Jesus Christ or the writings of the apostles and church fathers.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
There are many. I mentioned the moral argument already:
(1) Without God, no objective moral rules and values exist
If atheism is true, morals would be social or biological constructs subject to change
(2) There are objective moral rules and values
Human experience shows that some things are objectively wrong, such as child abuse, the holocaust or discrimination against homosexuals
(3) From 1 and 2 it flows logically that God exists.
Only if God exists, do we have an obligation to act morally.
The usual responses include the Euthyphro dilemma, moral platonism or equating morality to maximum happiness. All of those are easily refuted however.
Sometimes atheists bring up the probem of evil, but that is irrelevant to the existence of God as lawgiver. Others give a social or moral critique of religion. But in fact evil deeds of believers just reinforce the moral argument not weaken it.
It's a pretty solid argument.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
http://rechten.el...RID2.pdf
This dynamic is described succinctly and further refined in the OT.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
-What about the structure of religions DOESNT this describe? What about the stories in the OT doesnt this explain?
Leaders early on learned how to extend their authority by institutionalizing this dynamic. With clever embellishments it enabled the israelites to conquer canaan while resisting the dilution of their identity. It was a brilliant, though totally human, innovation.
Jesus and paul only showed the world how to effect conquest from within, through revolution. Again, thoroughly man-made.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
There are problems with this statement. Any judgement in terms of false and true must be based on an objective standard or truth. Atheists do not have such a standard. What we have is indirect observation of historical events through documents and archeology.
Second, stories like the flood and the creation account could be metaphorical. In fact many Christians regard them that way. These stories for them convey a higher truth: God as Creator of the universe and the impending judgment of God for sin.
Third, Bible narratives like the flood could be literally true just as well. There is no conclusive evidence against that interpretation. In fact, some Christians insist that the Genesis accounts are more consistent with the natural than for instance Darwinism. This is called creationism. One may not agree with it in full (I don't), but it is a logically defensible position to hold.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Irrespective of what you and they all preach, this means inevitable conflict, suffering, sacrifice, and slaughter, because an inseparable part of this equation is your obsession with reproductive aggression. 'FILL UP THE EARTH' is not a request. It is your Prime Directive.
This is where the edgy ecumenicism of dormancy gives way to outward hostility, when the children of the Chosen begin to starve.
Again you all SAY the same things. You all CLAIM to know the source of goodness and peace. But youre always ready and willing to kill and die in droves, in the most amoral of ways, in order to PROVE it arent you?
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
You seem to be overlooking an important one though. The REASON that god had to sacrifice his only begotten son was because of the original sin. Had not adam succumbed, jesus would never have had to die. I think paul says this somewhere, yes?
Xian guilt is an important part of your particular mantra and this is the source of it. Jesus on the cross was not inevitable.No as ethelred will tell you there was simply no time for the flood to happen. Right ET?
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Three fundamental problems I see with a socio-biological foundation for morality:
First, socio-biological constructs are not objective. Objective moral values would hold everywhere, regardless of culture, history or human opinion. The holocaust would also be a bad thing on Pluto.
Second, the truth of a moral value is independent of how that value came about in terms of human experience. This can be understood from our understanding of the natural world. Before we came to understand the electron, electrons did exist.
Third, the social biological account is self-defeating. It presupposes evolution, and within evolution everything is the result of socio-biological processes. This means that the socio-biological argument itself is just the result of the same process. But a natural process cannot prove its own veracity.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Morals are NOT social constructs? They vary from society to society.
Why are those things wrong? Aside from that notion being ingrained into us since birth. I think we lack a control group for either point to be proven. I think that 'feral humans' would behave quite similarly to animals, killing and raping when it suits them. [yeah, the last part is a bit of an assumption, but it can be seen in less 'civil' populations.
So...because we truly have no OBLIGATION to act morally...where does that leave your claim?
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Aha, the old religious pluralism objection. Allow me:
1. Religious pluralism is a fallacious ad hominem argument
2. Religious pluralism itself might be wrong, for it also demands exclusivity
3. It is often based on the genetic fallacy: however the truth of something is not defined by it's way of origin
4. Religious pluralism is a worldview of its own which has roots in the culture of western post-modernism
Let me provide you the more logical approach: if indeed objective truth exists as I have shown earlier, then logically one of the religions must be true, and all others false. The true one could be Christianity, or pluralism, or atheism or buddhism etc. But the most likely candidate for truth is based on the best evidence. And Christiany has by far the best papers so far.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
The strictest religious cultures allow women to do NOTHING else but make and raise children. Charity is invariably meant for families which have grown too large to support themselves. Physical appearance is standardized and disguised to reduce the temptation to stray. And deviation from these mores carries the worst of punishments.
Religions may moderate these mores but they never abandon them. Secular western society has legitimized alternative sexual activities which do not lead to conception. and it has given both sexes meaningful alternatives to procreation.
This is due in part to our tropical reproductive rate. But religions seek to MAXIMIZE this rate and this has resulted in equally bizarre and draconian social measures designed to compensate for it.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Some cultures have no qualms with murder, rape, sodomizing children, ergo those being 'bad' are not Objective moral values.
In your opinion...
I have yet to see such 'evidence'.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
I rest my case. Clearly the more rational approach is to consider these things objectively morally wrong. You are in fact saying that child abuse could be a good thing to do. Do you see the level of perverse thinking your atheism has lead you to?
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
'Everything is beautiful in its own time... There is a [Proper] time for everything under the sun.' In other words, defeat is NOT an option.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
You have misunderstood the word objective here. Objective means independent of culture, human opinion and time. You are also making the classical mistake of confusing moral epistemology with moral ontology.
The fact that societies and people violate objective moral codes does not mean they do not exist. Even if Hitler had convinced the whole earth that gassing the Jews was a decent thing to do, it would still be morally wrong.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
At the risk of repeating myself: Biblical inerrancy is a different topic. I would be happy to discuss at some point, but not now. You know, when two grownups have a debate they usually don't jump from topic to topic like little children.
Right now we are discussing the moral argument for the existence of God. If you have any contribution to make to that, then feel free to do so.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
I know youre feeling very civil at the moment in stating this, but islam in many parts of the world are feeling the effects of enforced population growth more acutely than you.
And their god tells them their suffering is your fault. Just as your god would if you were in their shoes. And you have been, so to speak, and you WILL be, no doubt. Because in their function, your religions are IDENTICAL. Theirs is a little more refined model perhaps. Mach X.3Which is why you brought up the holocaust? I only countered with an identical example. Your god CONDONES holocausts in certain circumstances... like the flood. Nazis took inspiration from joshua you know.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
And? Who cares...
These things are largely agreed upon due to the similarities that most humans share. The fact that we can agree on something in no way implies that there exists an objective standard separate from us and our mutual agreement.
1 is irrelevant and 2 is flawed logic.
It's a shit argument.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Holocaust, the jewish word for german inquisition.
A moral value can be true or false? Since when? Stop trying to make sense! Yes morals existed before your religion came to due, ever heard of plato?
You are talking but only shit comes out. Every multi cellular life form has to some degree a moral value otherwise cells would never be able to cooperate. Geuss what?! Single cellular organisms dont give a damn! And when they gave a damn they crushed their single cellular organisms and survived many attacks, look evolution.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
A baseless assumption as usual. I receive (anonymous)endorsements through this site on a daily basis. The reality is that Physorg is dominated by a very, very small group of agressive atheists that spoil the debate by intimidation and foul mouthing. This site has by far the lowest standards when it comes to human decency and intelligence of arguments.
You yourself are a fine example of this kind of moral and intellectual degradation by your cursing and bad reasoning.
But your time is up. In fact atheism is on it's way out, even in the west. Naturalism just doesn't have the answers for mankinds problems amymore.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
All humans posses the desire to be free from force and coercion, this does not make force or coercion objectively wrong, it makes it mutually agreed upon to be wrong BY HUMANS.
Something that is an objective truth does not depend on subjective valuation. Mathematics for example are objective, no one's opinion determines the result of an addition operation. This is wholly unlike moral valuation, where the moral value of a given scenario is utterly determined by the person considering that scenario. When widespread or close to mutual agreement can be reached we form codes of conduct (aka laws) regarding those agreements, to protect against the individuals that do not agree.
This is reality. If you give a damn about understanding reality listen to me, not this fool Henrik.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Do I need to say more? Are people like him considered the future of humanity? Is this the level of intelligence that atheism strives for? Pathetic.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
It's not an assumption when it is right here in black and white. No one agrees with you. We are all laughing at you.
I bet you do buddy, I bet you do.
The reality is physorg is a community dedicated to the advancement of the human race through the scientific method. You fire worshipers, snake eaters, and incense burners are not welcome to proselytize your bullshit all over the place.
What are you 5? Oh no bad words mommy help!
HAHAHA you are delusional, I can give you several prominent sources stating the exact opposite.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
http://www.npr.or...11885128
ABC News: The rise of Atheism:
http://abcnews.go...gb2_y98M
The Pew Forum Religious Landscape Survey:
http://religions.pewforum.org/
Demographics of Atheism:
http://en.wikiped..._atheism
The fastest growing religion is no religion:
http://blog.belie...-re.html
I can do this all day. There are HUNDREDS of reports and studies and surveys that show that Atheism is the fastest growing position concerning god and religion, not only in the US but around the world. The pew forum poll shows that TWENTY FIVE PERCENT of Americans under age 25 do not believe in god. Christianity, on the other hand, is steadily losing ground...
You are wrong, you speak out of your ass, or you blatantly lie. I would hope it is not the latter or you would be both a lyer and a hypocrite.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
In no way does this undermine either premise 1 or 2. The question is not that humans agree, but why do humans agree on moral standards?
The most likely answer is that these standards exist as objective truths, independent of culture and biology. The alternative, that they are arbitrary by-products of evolution, does not explain why people feel compelled to consider things like child rape a moral evil.
So the most plausible explanation for human moral behavior is not majority opinion or biology but simply that premise 2 is true.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
So you have no clue what the "holocaust" was about? Ok then, i supose your ignorant kind filled with lies is the future.
http://demotivate...gion.jpg
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Yes it does, your lack of understand your own faulty logic is not my problem.
Oh, the most likely answer huh? According to who, you?
The most likely answer is that humans all share certain similarities so of course we will all like certain things and dislike certain things, for christ sake is this really that hard? All humans feel pain, so the vast majority of humans dislike being stabbed in the gut... well golly gee according to you that means it must be an objective truth... not just a mutual agreement.
Of course it does, if you understood empathy worth a damn
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
How weak and pathetic you must consider yourself, to not belief that you would know how to behave morally without god telling you.
Pathetic. You must think you are an idiot... maybe you are and that is why you believe what you believe because you are not intelligent enough to empower yourself with the ability to do right on your own without the guidance of your sky daddy. Grow the fuck up and learn that you, on your own, can understand right from wrong and you do not need the security blanket that is your imaginary friend "god"
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
How does that undermine premise 2? The fact that humans share feelings of pain does not prove at all that objective moral values do not exist, this is a non sequitur. To the contrary, moral behavior is sometimes very painful but people still do it. For instance saving another life at the risk of serious personal harm is considered morally good.
Avoidance of pain and striving for happiness are never a good foundation for moral behavior, because they are intrinsically subjective. For instance, the amount of pain that speaking the truth could cause, should not be a reason to conclude that lying is morally ok.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
"God" replaced the role of your father as you grew into adulthood. You never quite matured mentally to the point of self-sufficiency and have always relied on being told what to do, afraid or incapable of making those decisions for yourself. As you passed that age where society deems it inappropriate for your human parents to baby you like they did as a child you found god was able to fill that role quite nicely. Now, you don't have to think for yourself, you don't have to be concerned with whether or not you are doing the right thing, all you have to do is listen to what god tells you through the bible and through your delusions of your "personal relationship" with Jesus.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
One, you don't rest your case, you are going to continue ranting about it until we tire of you and move on to something else.
Secondly, It is cold logic and fact, not perverse thinking. Also, atheism did not lead me to logical thought, quite the other way around...
And (C), You are doing your cause more harm than good.
Your ramblings about morals and semantics do nothing to further your efforts as well.
Ah well, as Deathclock says this whole thing has turned into a "shit argument". You spout crap off, we simply ask for proof, or we counterpoint, you go off on another pre-fab tangent, we try again, repeat.
'twas, entertaining
later o/
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
You can't follow a simple argument. I did not set out to prove that objective morality does not exist, I set out to demonstrate that the evidence that YOU gave for objective morality was not evidence at all, and I did that by providing a perfectly plausible alternative explanation.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
First of all, I did not make that claim. You are attacking a straw man. Second, how does that undermine premise 1 or 2? I do not see the logical connection.
In fact without God and objective moral values, you could not even make any moral judgement about me or anyone else, because in atheism all moral values are subjective.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
The whole thing is a hopeless straw man. You don't know me so yet another idle assumption. I thought atheism was all about rationality and facts?
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
You don't have to, it is the necessary consequence of your position.
Wait, you just said I cannot make a moral judgement if objective morality does not exist because all moral values are subjective... are you confused? I certainly can make a moral judgement about anything without the existence of objective morality... and I do all the time, as do we all. And when most of us agree on our own subjective moral valuation we use that consensus of opinion to form codes of conduct and laws.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Either you need god to tell you not to rape a child, or you don't. If you do, you are pathetic and I feel sorry for you, if you don't, then you must possess the ability to reach moral conclusions absent of god... which defeats your entire argument.
So which is it?
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Hmm, how would that be called in terms of logic. Self-contradiction perhaps? Lying? Just being confused?
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
I don't know how you think those two statements are contradictory... they are not.
This is getting ridiculous. I'll explain this one more time. You gave an example as evidence that objective morality must exist. I provided a plausible counter-explanation for your example that did not invoke objective morality. In doing so I defeated your proposed evidence. I was not trying to prove that objective morality does not exist, because one cannot prove a negative assumption, that is faulty logic.
You are confused. Take a second and re-read those posts if you have to.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
You are presenting the fallacy called the Euthyphro dilemma, which I have adressed earlier. The real answer is that moral values are good because they represent God's expression of His goodness. This He has planted in humans in what we call a conscience. Perhaps however conscience is a new phenomenon for you.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
No, this is not the Euthyphro Dilemma, you are trying to shoe-horn it into that though.
I'll ask again. Either god needs to tell you not to rape a child or you wouldn't know not to do that, or you would know not to rape a child on your own in a world that is absent of god and his "rules".
Which is it.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
So then we agree that premise 2 is valid, good. Objective moral values do exist. Child rape for instance is always wrong, even on the planet Mars, and even if human law would promote such an activity by majority vote.
Premise 1 still stands as well, because you have not provided any credible alternative source for objective morality apart from God. Human majority vote, avoidance of pain and general happiness are all subjective experiences.
With that you will conclude with me that from (1) and (2) it flows logically that (3) God exists.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
In one case, what is good is only good because god says it is good, which means "goodness" is arbitrary and anything can be good if god says it is.
In the other case, what is good is good on it's own merits and god says it is good because it simply is good. This implies that goodness is ABOVE god, is BEYOND god, and god cannot change what is good
One alternative makes goodness subjective, which you are arguing against, and the other alternative limits the power of god and puts properties of reality above and beyond him.
Which is it?
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
This is not a coherent sentence for me to respond to. Yes, you did present the Euthrypho dilemma but in slightly different and somewhat confused wording.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Are you insane or have you given up?
You gave an example as evidence for objective morality, I defeated that example by providing a solution that did not rely on objective morality.
What the fuck gives you the idea that my refutation of your evidence for objective morality means that I suddenly agree with you?
Seriously if you can't keep up this discussion will quickly lose it's novelty.
No it is not, I just stated the Euthrypho dilemma, which is completely different. Either you are woefully confused or you are deflecting and avoiding my arguments.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
The answer to the Euthrypho dilemma is that there is a better, third posibility, namely that God's laws are good because God Himself is good. Goodness is part of God's being. The moral values He has left in the human experience are simply a deliberate expression of His goodness. That solves the dilemma.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
I will also ask this a second time: Is goodness subjective and determined by god or is goodness above and beyond god and out of gods control?
Okay, so you are saying that god defines what is good, and god can define whatever he wants to be good... you just made an argument for non-existence of objective morality, since what is good is determined by god.
Are we done here? You just agreed that morality is subjective, and it is subject to the will of god.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (36)
Do you believe in Hell?
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
You stated that you believe the former, so you necessarily believe that morality is subjective.
I think we are done with your stupid idea of objective morality being evidence for god, since if objective morality existed it would be above and beyond the control of god, and I know you don't think that is true of anything.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
No, I simply say that human experience is most consistent with the assumption that objective morals do exist. Child rape for instance is considered an evil by virtually all people. Why? The most plausible explanation is that is represents an objective evil that exists independently of human opinion or biology. Be careful: I am not talking in premise 2 about the origin of objective morals, nor about the fact that subjective morals can exist. Just that objective morals do exist.
So do you reject the existence of any objective moral values and duties or not?
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
This is simple, you're grasping for straws and it shows.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
What possibly would warrant that conclusion? Objective means independent of variable human experience or opinion. God is by definition not a human but an omipotent Spirit who does not depend on human will. One of the key attributes of God is immutability which means that His morality is anything but variable.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Doesnt that mean that everything that happens around us is good because he created everything? Man your logic is flawed :S And please dont bring that adam and eve crap, god created them so he also was responsible for their mistakes they made. And their mistakes were good cuz god is good right.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
If morality is objective then god is not the law giver, and god is not omnipotent, and god does not have freedom of will. Therefore, according to your own beliefs, morality must be subjective, and it must be subject to the will of god.
How say you, heretic?
Objective means to not rely on a subject. God is a subject. If what is good relies on the determination of god as a subject (which can also be stated that what is good is subject to god) then morality is subjective, in that it is subject to god.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Now I can accuse you of dodging the question. Let's stick to the argument and it's premises. Premise 2 states that, given human experiences that condemn many things as evil or promote others as good, objective moral values most likely do exist.
Do you deny that objective moral values (like the evil of child rape) exist or not? A simple yes or no would do.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
I invalidated your premises...
No I do not believe that objective moral values exist. I believe that given the similarities between individuals a widespread or near-mutual consensus of subjective moral valuations can be established for the purpose of social order and that gives an approximation of the existence of objectively true moral principles in the absence of them.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
How would you know the difference between an objective moral truth and one that is simply mutually agreed upon absent of any objective morality?
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Objective morality is defined as independent of human reasoning and opinion. Obviously morality is subject to the will of God (everything, including the universe originates from God), but not because it exists independently of Him, but because moral values are the expression of God as the source and definition of good. You are trying to make a false distinction between the Word of God and God. But the argument says: only if God exists, can objective moral values exist.
Jan 19, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Your definition is flawed. Something that is objective exists as a property of reality independent of any other property of reality. God is a property of reality... if morality was objective it would exist independent of god.
You believe that morality is subjective, you are just too simple to understand that that is what you believe.
I am done here. If you want to continue fumbling over these concepts then please carry on, perhaps you will eventually come to your senses...
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Well, that puts you at odds with normal human experience. To imply that for instance child rape could under certain circumstances (through biology or majority vote) be considered morally acceptable, is less plausible than the opposite.
It is far more likely that people are morally outraged by child molestation because it presents an absolute moral abomination instead of just a human convention. I think most people would agree with me.
Because on Pluto child rape is also evil, and also in Andromeda. Second, the way in which we come to learn moral truth does not negate the plausibility of them being objective truths. The elektron is not true because humans discovered them, but because it exists independently.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Are you ever going to do what I asked?
If your God has an effect on physical reality, then there must be some physical evidence of him somewhere. The results of his actions should be testable and thus able to prove his existence demonstrably.
All I'm seeing are weak philosophical arguments. I doubt you even looked at the link I gave, as it has refutations for practically every "argument" you've presented, including the ones for design, morality, and philosophy.
Enough of this nonsense. Show us some proof, or you're full of the worst kind of BS.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
There is absolutely no proof that objective morality exists. You first have to prove that there is a divine authority that designs the objective moral system. Which you have not done.
Get to it, or you're wrong.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
I hope you continue to think about these concepts and eventually come to the proper conclusion, that you cannot redefine objective to any meaning that suits you, if something is subject to the will of anything, god included, then it is subjective.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Expressed by God, and objective to humans. And that is the point that matters. As humans we will be held accountable one day for our adherence to these objective truths. God will be the judge that day. But humans can never keep Gods laws because they are sinful. That is why God took away the sins of the world by taking on human experience and dying on the cross as Jesus. The only deadly sin in life remaining after that is to wilfully reject such a final love offer, and continue an existence in sin. God reserves the right to judge those people according to His high standards if they consistently reject His own flesh and blood.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
And here we go. Proof, man! Proof!
I want to see some proof!
Is this really the best you've got? I surely hope not.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
If you don't recognize all that you just said as a childish fairy tale I feel bad for you.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
That is incorrect. I have consistently defined objective morality in terms of independence from human opinion or biology. You are the one who is trying to redefine objective and play intellectual gymnastics, not me.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (14)
You have consistently defined it incorrectly...
As stated, if the value of something is subject to something else, then that thing is subjective. It doesn't matter if that thing is a human or not. Most dictionary definitions probably state human only because they consider humans the only things in existence that can make determinations. If we consider that god exists and that god can make determinations then things can be subject to the will of god, making them subjective.
If you think that god can determine what is good and bad, that god has control over that rather than it having control over god, then you think that morality is subjective and you invalidate your previous argument.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Many people would disagree with you, and say that human experience of good and evil is most consistent with the existence of objective moral values. So in that sense there is proof, because it is unlikely that all morality is just biology or majority opinion.
For instance, would gassing Jews during the nazi holocaust be objectively evil or could it be morally acceptable in some sense according to you?
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1.3 / 5 (13)
It is not proof and deathclock explained to you several times now why it is not proof. At this point you appear to be shoving your fingers in your ears and shouting "LA LA LA IM NOT LISTENING"
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Of course many people would disagree with me. Probably closed-minded bigots like yourself that think they know it all. I would deem it immoral, but obviously the people doing it would not.
Would you consider mass homicide of other nations' innocents by Moses' followers at the command of God moral? Because apparently if God tells you to do it, it's a-okay. And don't bother trying to tell me that they deserved it because they were sinful. I fail to see how the virgins they kidnapped and all the male and female children they slaughtered would be considered sinners.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1.3 / 5 (13)
Actually, please don't do that.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
How about just answering the question? Is according to you the mass killing of Jews an objective evil or not? If not, then please explain how there could be some good in there after all. Or are you afraid to give an answer?
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
I did answer your question. Read again.
Now that that's out of the way, mind answering my question?
You have a tendency to ignore my requests.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1.3 / 5 (13)
There was certainly good that came from it, yes. If you think otherwise you are thinking too simply. Of course, the good does not outweigh the bad in most people's opinions, but perhaps not everyone's opinion. Perhaps the holocaust taught the world a very important lesson that will remain in our collective consciousness for millenia to come. Perhaps if such an event didn't happen when it did an atrocity 1000x times greater would have happened in the distant future since we did not learn our lesson then.
The fact is you have no idea what would have happened had the holocaust not happened, it may have been MUCH MUCH worse. Perhaps we would have lost the war and been conquered by now.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
That is the Euthrypho dilemma which we have covered already. You may check my earlier posts on it. God wills something because He is good, and something is right because God wills it. So God's moral values are good because God is good. God does not determine what is good arbitrarily, but what is good flows logically from His own good nature.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
And where is your proof of this moral authority? And proof that he is good? Because I don't think sacrificing innocents, subjecting women to moral torture, and forcing girls to marry their rapists is acceptable actions of an objectively moral entity by any means.
You just walk right into these logical fallacies, you know?
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Probably does actually. When talking about ones own subjective experience then the crux of the matter is that some communication occurs when assessing an external influence. Just because the lizard on my deck is feeling happy in the warm sunshine (its a lovely late summer day here) does not imply that my subjective experience (its too hot) is modified unless the lizard communicates its feeling of comfort and thereby moderates my experience. However, the lizard says nothing and so I reckon its too hot.
Then again matey, I accept that I may have missed the point.
How do you feel?
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (15)
Now it seems like I am talking to a bot, or someone who's first language is not english.
I KNOW THAT IS THE EUTHRYPHO DILEMMA... the Euthrypho Dilemma is the failure of your argument. Deathclock tried explaining this to you but it's like talking to a brick wall.
Your definition of objective is wrong. Objectivity means that that which is objective does not depend on a subject. God is a subject. If what is good depends on Gods opinion, rather than being beyond Gods control, then what is good is subjective, and morality is subjective.
How many times do people have to tell you this? Is this your argument style, to go on and on to exhaustion?
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
That is another matter. Good can come from many things, either good or bad, that is not the point. A plane crash caused by a terrorist bomb is bad, but if a passenger rescues someone that is good.
But my question is whether the killing of Jews itself could be morally acceptable, and if so, in what sense?
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
I have already answered this question, and you have still failed to answer mine.
Helloooo? Anyone in there?
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (15)
Sure, but a lizard cannot make a valuation, or at best cannot communicate that valuation. God, presumably, can. Therefore the state of something is able to be subject to god. If god determines goodness (rather than visa-versa) then goodness itself is subject to gods valuation, meaning it is subjective, because it is subjective to gods valuation.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
That is just restating the obvious. Objective with regards to what? Human experience of course, which is exactly what my definition was. The other side contended that morality was subjective because of either human biology or human agreement, so subjective in terms of humanity as well. So your redefining of objective has no bearing upon the argument at all.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (14)
Yes, if it was enacted intentionally as the only means to prevent an even greater tragedy. In that case it would be immoral to fail to prevent the greater tragedy by not committing the lesser tragedy.
There was an article on here recently about a situation wherein you were at a switch board for a railroad and a train was coming and was going to kill a group of 10 hikers on the tracks, or you could throw the switch and the train would only kill 1 hiker... would it be moral to throw the switch, or moral to not throw the switch? What if the one hiker was elderly, or abused his wife, or a drug addicted, or whatever while the other 10 were upstanding citizens, would that change things?
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 2 / 5 (16)
No, you're wrong.
Objective to REALITY. If something is objectively true it doesn't depend on ANYTHING. It is true by it's own right, not because something else says it is true. If god has to say that something is good then it is NOT objectively good.
This is a simple concept, and I feel that you are still twisting the definition of objective to suit your purposes.
Perhaps you should go read about the Euthyphro Dilemma, because even theologians understand and admit to the dilemma that you are trying to skirt around by redefining what objectivity means.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
Yeah theres a video of youtube on that lecture from a professor, forgot the details, but i geuss physorg stole it to make an article, or maybe the professor made an article out of it , idk.
There is no concrete proof that they massively killed jews. The people who died in concentration camps might as well died from diseases, i have no clue i wasnt there.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (16)
Your arguments are often strong enough without including such a definitive retort.
- kaasinees
Take care. This belief is unlawful in parts of the western world.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
That is a logical fallacy, because such an event is unknown. In your words the gassing and killing of 6 million people could have been necessary to prevent a yet greater evil? That is just ludicrous thinking. Far more logical is to assert that the shoah constitutes an objective moral abomination, which is exactly what premise 2 states.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
That pretty much sums it up indeed.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
No, God is objective not subjective. There is no alternative opinion besides God or in God regarding moral values. These values are His because He is the objective standard of what is good, and moral laws are the necessary expression of His being.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
For those that didn't see a recent series of posts by Kaasinees here is link.
http://www.physor...vey.html
He is a SERIOUS hater of Jews. I disagreed with him so I became an evil Jew in his mind.
http://en.wikiquo...3%B6ller
For people like Kaasinees I am a Jew and not a former Catholic.
Ethelred
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1.3 / 5 (13)
Thank you, I appreciate that. I'll try to be more reserved, I know that is a weakness of mine.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (14)
I can't speak for the other posters here, but I know that there is no convincing you that you are wrong, about anything, because that is a property of your belief system. When the inherent correctness of a belief system is rolled right in tight with that belief system there is little anyone can do to persuade. My motivation for arguing with you was for the benefit of other readers, so that you don't sway someone else to believe in your nonsense.
I believe I have accomplished that goal based on the comments of others. There is no further need to run around in circles with you as it accomplishes nothing.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
As an Agnostic I have no trouble figuring that out. I don't need a psychotic non-existent god to tell that. I don't need you either. Its covered by the idea of treating others as you would wish to be treated. There is no need for a god to figure that one out.
By that same standard Jehovah's alleged murder of all the first born in Egypt and EVERYONE except 8 in the non-existent Great Flood was equally reprehensible.
If you claim otherwise you are not being objective nor is you claim of objective morality based on logic. Its just another false claim of yours.
All the dancing and evasions aren't going to make the world 6000 years old. Nor the Flood real nor the murder of the first born real either. All of those are just myths. Rather nasty ones but still just myths.
Ethelred
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Pffft...not my ghod. Your ghod sounds stupid and idiotic. Join the 21st century invest in a new shordurpersav.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (7)
Circular reasoning at its finest. You can't make something that doesn't have objective proof for it into a supreme objective authority.
You're saying God is objective because he says so and that's true because he's objective. Tard.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Congratulations, you are now the stupidest person to have posted on the PhysOrg forum, which is quite a feat. More than two dozen members of my family were murdered in Hitler's concentration camps, and I didn't have to be there to know that they were killed there.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Germans were a religious people fighting a total war. They were desperately trying to save their country from complete destruction. They believed god was on their side; Gott mit Uns on army and police belt buckles. Even the SS swore allegiance to hitler unto the death 'so wahr mir Gott helfe.' They all thought god was on their side.
They opened up his holy instruction manual and found explicit instructions on how to secure the holy land - Lebensraum. They desperately needed this because their religion had been enforcing maximum growth for a few generations.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (9)
I think the point is that
"He is good, and something that is right because Henrik wills it (and therefore god)..."
The idea of a god is only a tool to seemingly augment the veracity of one's own opinion. God never disagrees with the believers.
But since believers disagree with each other all the time then either god is a multiple billion schizophrenic or he's just made up.
so god is delusional or a delusion. Not much of a choice, really.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
"11 He has made everything beautiful in its time."
This follows a long list of things the god says all have their proper time, including dying, uprooting, killing, tearing down, weeping, mourning, scattering, refraining from embracing (celibacy), giving up, throwing away, tearing, remaining silent, HATING, and making WAR.
The message to priests here seems to be that there is a proper time for breaking every one of the commandments that moses received on the mount. Including quite a few not included.
And the actions by both god and his people throughout the book only confirm this. Obviously, the only real evil to the religionist is any action which would endanger the faith itself. Because god would not exist if there were no one left who believed in him.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Solomon also tells us
"As for human beings, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals."
-which describes the congregation but not of course the clergy, who were all chosen before birth to inhabit the city of god and so were born forgiven for everything they might ever choose to do, whether it was to assassinate popes or bugger alter boys. 'Before you were born I knew ye.'
This typically includes the chosen of all faiths. Muhammud got to marry a 10 year old. Kohannim got to eat the savory sacrifices given to god. The borgias had all sorts of fun. Etc. Grace has its privileges.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 4.9 / 5 (7)
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Islam is perhaps the most 'evolved' of them all, being conceived and refined with lessons learned from all the others.
Judaism really broke the barrier though. It codified the principles of reproductive aggression and made itself portable. Judaic proselytism and growth endangered the world to such an extent that another religion - christianity - had to be conceived as a backfire in order to stop it.
It made jews the people who killed god and thus justified their martyrdom and severe social restrictions. Constantine began this restriction which forbade jews from owning property or conducting normal business.
But even with all their oppression and cyclic pogrom jews persisted, because of the forced reproductive formulas which were an inseparable part of their faith. Xians and moslems used this formula to conquer the world.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
http://www.sulliv...ters.htm
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
So i think everyone here can agree here that it was an age of german inquisition. They didnt limit theirselves to fightng against jews, but everyone who didnt coooperate with their believes. I wouldnt be surprised if half the people that died were actually atheists or protestant christians.
What better publicity for the jews to claim the "jewish genocide" (which is an oxymoron since jewish people of multiple ethnicies exist) so they can call anyone who opposes jews a nazi?
I dont hate jews, i oppose religion, jews are just the worst of them all, but here is ethelred the jew trying to make out to be a racist.
There are christian jews in existince.
http://en.wikiped..._Judaism
I geuss you have no clue about what the jewish cult is.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
Every time someone makes a point that Henrik can not refute, he quotes a small part of the post elsewhere and wanders off with the argument in a direction that better suits his script.
To anyone that might actually be listening to what he is saying, think hard on that.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (15)
I noticed this too but gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed he was trying to overcome the character limit... but it is strange that the portions he chooses to quote are usually not the main point of the argument but some irrelevant component that he then attacks while failing to address the actual argument being made.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (15)
Examples of evil conduct actually reinforce the moral argument, confirming premise 2. Objectively good values and objectively evil values can only exist if God exists. In an atheistic world there would be no basis for condemning religious intolerance, because morality is just a man made illusion. In fact, in an atheistic world, things like the crusades could be considered a heart warming example of evolution in action, all part of the survival of the fittest.
That is a straw man. To a believer, God is not a concept but a deep and essential truth. God is the center of that persons life. God is not an artefact to explain the unexplained. God is the foundational reality for everything in the universe.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (15)
That is the fallacy of religious pluralism. It is self-defeating, because it also claims exclusivity. The truth is that the most plausible worldview is the one supported by the best evidence. If atheism is based on poor evidence, then it should be dismissed as false.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Give up already guy. We get it, you don't approve of atheism. Guess what, nobody gives a damn. For most of these guys, this was simply target practice.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (17)
Perhaps you do not know what a philosophical argument actually is. Philosophy uses concepts and ontological statements to build logical arguments. The point of the moral argument is to show that the existence of objective morality is possible only if God exists, and the morality is the expression of His Being.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (15)
What target? I did not see any credible refutation of either premise 1 or 2. No one has shown me that either:
Objective moral values and rules do not exist.
or:
Objective moral values and duties can exist in an atheistic world.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (14)
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (15)
I have no problem with atheism. In fact atheists are sometimes more honest than many religious people. I just demonstrated that atheism is not based on any rational arguments, and therefore an irrational worldview.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (15)
No, it was not. Your statements were a misrepresentation of my argument. Simply a straw man.
Objective moral values are values that are always true, independent of human opinion or biology. God is the source of morality not because He has arbitrarily chosen some set of values over another, but because they are the only possible expression of His Being. There is nothing subjective about God, He is subject to nothing, and is completely objective and true.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
No thanks. Keep fishing pal.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: not rated yet
Thats the first thing you have said in all your pontifications that I can agree with. Yes, to a believer, all you say is true. To a non-believer, all you say are just the ramblings of a deranged person. Im happy you have found peace in your beliefs, now be gone and let the rest of us have peace in ours. You have no right or obligation to inflict your beliefs on others who do not agree with you, any more than I desire you to accept my beliefs unless you choose to do so. Just dont think that you or your kind (including politicians sharing your beliefs) will ever exert your control over the rest of us. It is unwelcome, insulting and will be resisted. So long and good luck, Ive wasted far too much time listening to your babble.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (15)
Perhaps you just have no arguments for your belief in atheism. Then you are the irrational one here, not me. I have provided an elaboration of why I believe that the simple, elegant and logically airtight moral argument makes theism more plausible than atheism. You have provided exactly nothing. So your handwaving may look cool to you but in reality it is just silly.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (14)
So what premise of the moral argument for the existence of God do you disagree with, and why? If you cannot answer that coherently it is you who has lost the debate, not me. Running away is a sign of weakness, not strength.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (14)
You realize that stating something does not make it true right?
Atheism is the absence of belief in god. I do not believe in god because I see no credible evidence for god. "God" is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence and I see NO credible evidence.
What you consider evidence is nonsense. You don't know something so you make up god and say "god did it"... and you deign to tell me that I am irrational?
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (14)
Are you getting dizzy yet? You like to go around in circles don't you...
Something that is objectively true is true independent of ANYTHING... INCLUDING GOD.
Keep redefining what objective truth means to suit your argument, you are not fooling anyone but yourself.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (15)
ad infinitum
ad nauseaum
ad exhaustium
These are Henriks debate tactics. Repeat the same thing over and over again and ignore all counter arguments.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Wrong. I provided you with the most critical piece of information that has come for this pointless two day exercise, nobody cares on any level what YOU think. I guess I will just have to live with being "silly" then too.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
No, it is the religionists who claim exclusivity, to the point of considering all other worldviews the attributes of inferior humans. Who can be washed away. As in the flood. Disgusting.
> The truth is that the most plausible worldview is the one supported by the best evidence.
You typically confuse the truth and what is plausible. The truth is very, very hard to get to, even with a million research papers a year and billion-dollar gear. Your philo tools would not even be able to demonstrate the earth is round without science's help. While you ramble ignorantly, we cure cancer.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (16)
That is nonsene. It is the same as saying that your cat is an atheist. He has that same lack. Or were you born as an atheist? When you were lying around in diapers you lacked belief. If atheism is just an absence, it is nothing, and you have no way of knowing atheism is actually correct. Your world view is in that case self-refuting.
But Dawkins bus banner said: there is probably no God. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (15)
Yes, animals are atheist as far as we know, and yes all humans are born atheists... I don't see the problem.
You don't have to KNOW that it is correct. I don't KNOW that there is no god, I don't believe there is one. Atheism is a position concerning belief, not a position concerning knowledge.
Knowledge and belief are two completely different things.
It's not an extraordinary claim when there is no credible evidence for the existence of any god.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (16)
Proof? You are just making up definitions as you go.
A tree planted in the ground in your back yard is an objective truth, for it exists. But it's existence depends on the existence of the universe. But for your little peabrain, it's an objective truth.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 2 / 5 (16)
When I say I am atheist I mean that I do not believe in god. That is ALL I mean. I am not saying that I KNOW there is no god, because I do not know that. I am saying that I do not believe in the existence of any gods.
I don't particularly care what you think of that definition of the word, that is the one that this self-described atheist uses. Theism has to do with belief in god, DO NOT confuse belief and knowledge. I claim no knowledge of either the existence or the non-existence of god, I only claim that I do not believe in god.
Furthermore, I cannot control what I believe, and neither can you or anybody else. I cannot force myself to believe in god any more than I could force myself to believe in the Loch Ness Monster. I could ACT like I do, but that would be an act and I would always know that I do not believe it.
Maybe you should try to learn some things about people before you make assumptions.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (18)
So now you have provided some actual evidence that rationality is not an object for atheism. Please sign them up for Dawkins little foundation on the promotion of rational thinking.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
Religious Pluralism is "Sometimes as a synonym for ecumenism, i.e., the promotion of some level of unity, co-operation, and improved understanding between different religions or different denominations within a single religion."
http://en.wikiped...luralism
-In its most pure form pluralism is the acceptance of other religions, not their exclusion yes? And it is rare in the modern religions, especially in regions of chronic, FORCED overpopulation where theyre trying to CONSUME one another. Yes?
This is objectively immoral but endorsed by every god in every holy book on the shelf. YES?
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (15)
Sigh. Belief, if rational, is based on knowledge. And knowledge is based on certain beliefs. They are not completely separate. To think that is to deny basic human experience.
If you board an airplane you know the pilot is trained to fly it safely and the aircraft is designed with safety in mind. You base your belief that you will arive in one piece on that knowledge. But you believe it, because you dont know for sure.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (17)
Please stay polite. Anger is irrational. But I can already see an atheist parade with you and your little angry atheist goldfish.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (15)
Something being based on something else does not mean it is the same as something else... are you illiterate?
ROFL you don't know that at all... you believe it, but you don't know it. In order to know it you would have had to have witnessed the design and construction of the aircraft and the training of the pilot.
Your problem is that you don't even know what constitutes "knowledge"...
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (15)
Do you think animals believe in god? Because if they do not they are atheists. Stop deflecting and making posts with no content, and stop attacking people and pretending that you are innocent.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
-Sheeple are easy to herd. Rods and staffs comfort them. Even cats can be herded if you have a long stick with a smelly fish on the end of it.
"16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
-But if this is not smelly enough maybe we can put the fear of god into you:
"18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil."
-What is the difference between immortality and a smelly fish? Whats the difference between hell and the rack of the Inquisition? Or the fasces even? The cross??
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
How do you know that?
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (14)
Faith in God is a uniquely human feature, because of the very fact that this kind of faith and reason go together. Animals act out of instinct, so they have no rational basis for developing faith in a deity. But to say that your cat is an atheist shows that atheism has nothing to do with being more rational.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
Atheism means you don't believe in god... so if you don't believe in god you are an atheist. Animals don't believe in god, because as far as we know animals can't believe in anything, so animals are by definition atheists...
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (13)
How can you call something irrational that you have no understanding of?
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
Im not being facetious. What makes you think there is a DIFFERENCE other than the degree of elaboration?
What makes you think that believing earnestly in the eucharist is not just like learning to fetch or jump over backwards? The expectation of reward is the same. Humans can wait a little longer for gratification is all.
Youre belief system is a mechanism of husbandry. We are DOMESTICATED.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Noah was happy saving rats, cockroaches and other vermin. Did not try to save a single baby, did not even think of pleading with his godawful creator, in the face of the genocide of the human race. Xians use Hitler and Stalin as straw men but the slaughtering of mankind makes them small fry compared to that.
Christianity teaches it's OK to stand idle in the face of Genocide when it's convenient. Claiming this kind of think to be absolute moral truth is truly the root of all evil.
So Henrik, even if your god existed, I would be his sworn enemy. If the price of my rapture was the damnation of the rest of mankind, I would stay behind every time and fall with dignity, with my people.
There is nothing appealing in your religion Henrik, just the bleating herd.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (14)
A banana cannot believe in anything, so is a banana also an atheist? Is a demented person an atheist? Someone in a coma? A dead one?
One good thing for you is that this definition would mean atheism becomes the largest religion overnight. But I think you should try and be more careful to save all your fellow atheists that are designated to become processed food. I just ate some of them today. Do atheists eat atheists as well?
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (15)
Proof? You are making an assumption here without basis. In fact Noah preached for a 120 years according to the Bible. His sermon was his hammer and saw.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
I don't know why you think this is meaningful, we are just telling you what the word means, this is not a competition.
Atheism is the null position, the null hypothesis. It is not a religion or a belief system. At best it can be called a position concerning god, and that position is a lack of belief.
It's your problem that you don't understand what atheism is and is not, we are just trying to educate you.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (13)
I was not talking about the truth of any specific religion, nor about Bible inerrancy, but the existence of God. Try to stick with the subject. Your argument is irrelevant to either premise 1 or 2.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (15)
So then how do you know it is true? Atheism may be wrong but you have no way of telling. It seems quite illogical to hold a position that cannot be explained in any way by rational arguments. Theism seems more logical, for it does depend on rational arguments.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
2He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
3He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
4Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me."
Et cetera. The references are undeniable. God continually tempted the israelites to stray throughout the OT and repeatedly culled those who could not conform, leaving the Remnants as breeding stock. This is HUSBANDRY.
Is this moral henrik? Is was perhaps necessary, given the vicious state of humanity at the time and its great potential for ecological destruction. Even by nebucchadnezzars time vast areas had been saltified, desertified. Something had to be done. Humanity had to be corralled and pacified.
'The meek shall inherit the earth.'
-This is a Promise and a Goal.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Please learn what atheism is, if you take nothing else from this discussion please let it be knowledge of that word means. Atheism is the default position, it is what you are if you don't believe in any gods. If you don't know of any gods then you obviously do not believe in any gods and are therefore an atheist. My son is an atheist, not because I am but because he is only 1 year old and has never heard of the concept. I am atheist despite having heard of the concept of god because I fail to see any credible evidence to support a positive belief in any god.
As was said, no one controls what they believe, you can't just choose to believe or not to believe something. If I told you to choose to believe that leprechauns were real you couldn't do it, you could act the part but you couldn't actually change your belief. It is exactly the same with god.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (15)
How would you know? You do not know anything, because you hold the null position. If God is a Father, then believers are His children. A father loves his children. Do you have a family or are these alien concepts to you?
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
I don't know that it is true, I don't know that god does not exist. Atheism is not about your knowledge, it is about your belief.
Absolutely.
The position is the default position because it invokes the fewest assumptions. Do you know what the term null hypothesis means? You should look it up sometime.
If I ever found credible evidence for the existence of god I am sure I would then believe in god.
When you say that atheism is not supported by reason but theism is you are just stating your bias. Atheism is far more rational to me because I do not recognize any credible evidence for god, that makes the lack of belief in god rational, and the opposite irrational.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (14)
I have not seen any such evidence. Both premise 1 and premise 2 still stand. From those it flows logically that God exists.
I am not speaking about what people believe or not. The issue is whether the existence of God is more plausible than the opposite. The moral argument has shown that theism is rational because it can account for the existence of objective moral values. What atheism believes, is irrelevant. The question is about plausible existence not beliefs of individuals.
Your child is also an infant or toddler. He is that despite him not having any knowledge of those concepts. He also does not know which doctor delivered him, but the doctor exists.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Did god actually visit himself upon a 13 year old married girl, or would this too be immoral? Why do some moslems crap on the floor rather than use toilets? Why was it ok to slaughter cathars by the score? Who is to ask and who is to answer?
Am I praying or am I really just talking to myself?
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Atheism means you do not believe in god. It has nothing to do with what you know or what you think is more plausible.
Stop changing the meaning of the word, stop arguing as if it meant more than it does.
Atheism is the null hypothesis. Look up that term and you will find that the null hypothesis can NEVER be proven, data (knowledge) can only reject the null hypothesis or fail to reject the null hypothesis. No amount of information in the world can prove that god does not exist, for several reasons, including gods defined omni-properties which allow him to intentionally and perfectly avoid detection.
You need to understand some basic philosophic concepts before you attempt to use philosophy to support an argument. You do not appear to understand even basic principles.
You need to know about these concepts:
-Null hypothesis
-Burden of proof
-The nature of knowledge
-The nature of belief
-Falsifiability
..and probably a few more
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (14)
Since you admit you have no way of knowing if atheism is actually true, how do you then go on to conclude that someone else his belief in God is irrational?
You may not see the evidence, but they do see it. If atheism is ultimately an absence of personal belief in God that cannot be validated in any way, how can you ever make the claim that a Christian is irrational for believing in God?
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
I never said your belief in god is irrational, I said it would be irrational for me to believe in god.
What is rational is relative to the individual. I don't think mentally healthy individuals ever act irrationally.
Correct. That does not mean they are right, however, but it does make their belief rational.
Now you are getting it, null hypotheses can never be validated, by definition. They can only be upheld by the evidence or overturned by the evidence.
I don't. You have been the one telling me that I am an irrational atheist.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (14)
Atheism makes a lot of assumptions:
- no existence of objective moral values
- mankind is a biological machine, the by-product of evolution
- life has no higher meaning
- the universe is uncaused
- the universe is fine tuned for life by chance
- why there is something rather than nothing cannot be known
- no supernatural events are possible
And many more. So atheism is not the simplest assumption, it is a complex one.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Knowledge does not have to be true. You can have knowledge that is false. Just because something is knowledge does not mean that it is correct.
Rational is acting in a manner that is consistent with your knowledge. Keep in mind that knowledge is not necessarily true or accurate.
Maybe that will help you understand where I am coming from anyway.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Every conjecture we make on top of that is exponentially less likely to be true.
That the universe is a construct is less likely.
An artificial construct, even less likely.
The artificial construct of an entity - of a sentient entity - that is still around - that observes - that cares - all much less likely than the previous conjecture.
This is the point we reach something you think of as a god, and we are in very unlikely territory. This is a scientific argument against the existence of any God.
By the time we reach your god and all its specifics, the probability of truth is infinitesimal.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
None of this describes atheism.
I told you, atheism is the lack of belief in god, that is ALL it is. You keep asserting that atheism means all these things that have nothing to do with it.
A negative assumption (the assumption that something does not exist) is a lesser assumption than a positive assumption (the assumption that something does exist).
Assuming that there is no god is less of an assumption than assuming that there is a god... because there are an infinite number of things that COULD exist but do not, but only a few things that do exist.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (13)
That is a form of postive atheism, perhaps almost agnosticism. You do not believe in God for personal lack of evidence, but at the same you have no way of knowing if you are correct.
Let me then ask you what kind of evidence would convince you to believe there is a God?
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
I don't want to get muddied by competing definitions and sub-definitions. When I say atheism I mean a lack of belief in god, please just accept that I have spent far too long arguing about these definitions.
Correct.
This is an excellent question. Let's start with what would give me the strongest belief.
- If an entity appeared before me and a large group of people that defied explanation and that claimed to be god I would think that it was either god or an alien life form if the veracity of the experience was confirmed by most/all of the other witnesses.
cont'd.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (14)
That would be a self-refuting position, because "there is no objective truth" is assumed to be an objective truth, which is self-contradicting
Imagine that someone would pour some boiling hot water over your head. Is the resulting pain an objective truth you think?
Suppose you child is suddenly very sick. Is that an objective enough truth for you to call the doctor?
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
There are indeed hundreds, if not thousands of moral systems that do not involve a god.
Here is mine: The economist's view.
In all the universe, sentient life is so rare it is easily a trillion times more valuable than gold. Therefore all the wealth in the world (including oil, ahm!) does not justify the suffering of a single soul. Justice and all the rest flows from that.
Your ideas are not a panacea for the world; and their side effects are so toxic as to be actively detrimental to civilisation.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
- If science exhausts all possible research and is "finished" and the final result is that the universe is completely inexplicable and random. I am not holding my breath for this as science will not be finished for the conceivable future.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Meaningless word-play.
This is the definition of subjective. You just demonstrated that you have no idea what these terms mean.
It is truth that is relative to the assumed context of my perception of reality, and that is enough to warrant the action of visiting the doctor. I have no issue with relative truth, only objective truth.
You don't think deeply enough to understand what I am talking about, or to participate in matters of philosophy.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (14)
You have misunderstood the moral argument. It is not the belief in God that is responsible for moral objectivity, but the existence of God. The moral argument states that unless God exists, objective moral values do not exist. The fact that people can behave moral or immoral is another matter.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (15)
From your own worldview, is that:
a. an objective truth based on some form of logical proof
b. a relative truth in some context without proof
c. just a random opinion
If it is not a., then how do you know you are right about this assertion?
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
I don't believe that humans have the ability to prove anything in absolute terms, only in relative terms. I can point to a brick and say "there is proof of that brick, we both see it, we can both touch it, that is proof"... but the reality is that proof is relative to several assumptions. The first assumption is that our perception of reality is not a mutually shared illusion a la the matrix. There are many other assumptions being made here but I'm running out of characters...
Relative truth is determined through relative proofs. A relative proof is based on initial assumptions, also known as axioms.
I don't and cannot know that I am objectively right about anything, that is the point.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (15)
Is that an absolute truth, a relative truth without proof or a random opinion. How do you know that these books are actually fantastic, and that I need them. Remember you said you did not believe in proof or the knowledge of absolute truth.
In fact all your statements are void because you have no way of knowing that anything you say is actually true, for proof is not possible.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
A relative truth. It is relative to the assumption that my perception of reality is accurate, which I have no way to know for sure.
Well they are fantastic in my opinion, so that is an opinion. It is also my opinion that you need them evidenced by our interaction. All of this is also relative to the assumption stated above.
I did not forget...
How does that make my statements void? If you only ever concern yourself with proven objective truth you will either delude yourself or never do anything.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (14)
That includes your definition of atheism. If you cannot objectively prove that you are indeed an atheist, you could in fact be a theist who is temporarily insane.
You are not able to objectively prove that atheism even exists or has a definition. That pretty much invalidates all of your previous posts.
One step further, how do you know that your belief that objective truth cannot be known, is true? You see, your view of truth is a form of post-modernism/relativism, and it is self-refuting.
Paris is the capital of France, as we can know this to be objectively true. To say anything else is meaningless word play, because you have no way of knowing if you are correct.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
We can not afford your time.
Mutually balanced exclusion.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (15)
I conclude that you choose to live in your own little twilight zone, your eclectic world where everything is relative and floating in wavy perceptive asumptions of nullness.
Do you mind if I write you off as a serious contender for truth in this debate evidenced by your interaction? But thanks for your time. Be blessed, objectively.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
I could be insane. A fundamental property of insanity is that you don't realize it.
No it does not. Are axioms a new concept for you? I am not the only one subject to these limitations, you are too.
I don't, and it is not, it is very simple to demonstrate. Do you know that reality is not an illusion? Answer the question.
You continue to prove that you have no idea what I am talking about. You do not know what objective means. Paris being the capital of France is relative to the context of our perception of reality, which MAY be illusory.
I'm beginning to think that you are not ready to consider these concepts...
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Do you know for a fact that your perception of reality is not an illusion?
I'll answer for you, you don't.
Therefore everything I have said applies to you as well. You're just too ignorant and immature to understand it.
The old adage about "throwing pearls to swine" comes to mind here...
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
(I don't particularly like Harry Potter, for some reason this was the first example I thought of...)
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Circular reasoning is completely devoid of logic. You can't make an argument for ANYTHING when the foundation of your argument is illogical circular reasoning. Philosophical arguments aren't immune to logic; quite the opposite, actually. The basis of philosophy is logic. Circular reasoning is pretty much chapter 1 of phil 101.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
You say this is an objective truth. Unfortunately for you you do not and cannot know if your perception of reality is accurate or is an illusion. France might not exist in reality, france might only exist in the context of your illusion. If this is the case, then it is NOT an objective truth that paris is the capital of france, because neither paris nor france exist and so they cannot be/have a capital.
Do I think this is the case? Of course not. Do I KNOW that it is not the case? No, and neither do you.
Again, epistemology, study it.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
Scientists, for the most part, understand this. That is why science is NOT about finding "truth" it is about finding evidence. That is why a theory is described as the best explanation we have given the evidence, instead of being defined as "the truth". As soon as you start talking about "the truth" you are deluding yourself... and that is all Christians talk about. Religious people are the most deluded people on the planet. Atheists admit they don't know, because really no one knows. That is why atheism is a rational position.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (15)
And that is exactly what I am establishing. Faith in God is rational because it is rooted in plausible evidence. It is a reasonable, plausible faith. One argument I have provided is the moral argument. It makes plausible that without God, objective moral values are impossible. With objective I mean independent of human opinion. (Not objective in terms of objective reality or platonic truth).
Objective truth is not my claim, but reasonable evidence for that truth. Ultimately human experience relies on certain axiomatic principles that cannot be proven, but are assumed to be true, like the reliability of our senses and the reality of the universe.
But to conclude from that that atheism is more rational is a non sequitur, because the belief in God can be demonstrated to be rooted in credible evidence. Atheism is not supported by credible evidence, and cannot be validated. It is the weaker position, and less rational.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
This tells me that you still don't understand what atheism is, and that I have wasted my time with you... oh well, no meeting of the minds will be had here today.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (14)
That is a logical fallacy. Objective truth exists (as you have admitted), and through plausible evidence we can know it. That includes reliance on certain self-evident truths, but we have no reason to believe that our knowledge of the truth is illusory because we cannot prove everything though observation or logic.
I want to add one more important point, and that is that you are assuming that human reasoning is the only way of establishing truth. How do you know that to be true? For instance, it is quite possible that God reveals certain truths through His Spirit to humans, or via other immaterial means. For instance, the human conscience could contain God's moral values.
This is in fact what the Bible claims. Through faith we can know God, and even the world. Faith is not based on human reasoning, but is spiritual. Only by faith can objective truth really be known.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (15)
The fact that only faith can really bring people to the truth, is implicitly affirmed by your own analysis. You have confirmed that objective truth is fundamentally inaccesssible through human reasoning, because of its epistemological limits.
This is logically consistent with the Biblical claim that objective truth (Jesus said He is the truth Himself) can only be accessed trough the Spirit by faith. In fact by affirming the weakness of human reasoning you have confirmed the Biblical account of faith as the evidence of things that cannot be seen (Hebrews 11:1-3)
The lack of atheism is a lack of faith in God, and therefore the lack of truth. Only through knowledge of God can this (otherwise hidden) objective truth be known.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (17)
The solution to that problem of epistemology is not atheism. Atheism is an escape from that reality. God is the ultimate standard of truth that humans cannot grasp with logic. That is what the Bible says: my thoughts are higher than your thoughts. Jesus said: by faith you shall live. The missing truth that leads people to cynicism, atheism, skepticms or agnosticism can only be known in full through spiritual revelation, by faith in Jesus Christ.
And if you have not tried that route, I would like to challenge you to test Jesus. God does not reveal Himself to man through ferrari's popping up, or grand manifestations, but in the heart through faith in His Name. If you test this, God will answer and you will know.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
And his mom - the only woman EVER (until the present) able to conceive without being sullied by the touch of a man? What does this all SUGGEST to you?
Homosexuals were problematic in societies geared toward maximizing reproduction. What better way to remove them from the general pop than to turn them into monks and nuns? Who would more fiercely guard the church and protect its secrets than the minority who were given a pleasant and secluded alternative to persecution?
I am sure there was ample precedent in dionysian and athenain cults, temple virgins and such. Nothing new under the sun.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Plausible evidence? for objective knowledge? Reliance on "self evident truths"? You have a serious case of mush-mouth (or mush-brain)...
You are fumbling with philosophical concepts. Again I will suggest you study epistemology because while you assert that you understand these concepts that you keep referring to your own words demonstrate that you do not, or at best you have only a passing familiarization with them.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
They were powerful facets of social engineering, of waging war on subcultures and manipulating minorities. And of conquering and reordering a large part of the world. Isnt this enough evidence for you? Let me know if you need more.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
Again, you're trying to use an unfalsifiable hypothetical concept as the basis of an allegedly logical argument. If the foundation of what you're saying is not either an objective truth or an accepted subjective truth or fact, then it's not even worth discussing.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
If you even entertain the possibility of one God, you have to entertain the possibility of them all. Because they are all equally likely. They all have the same amount of evidence supporting them (which is none, by the way). You may claim to not be referring to any one specific God. But the nature of the God to which you keep referring is the Christian God, as you refer to him as ultimately good and attainable only by faith. How many times have I asked you this now: Where is your PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that this God exists? Where is your evidence that he is the ONLY PLAUSIBLE GOD?
Philosophical arguments are not evidence. They are cop-outs. Learn this quickly, and you will be better off. You have continuously ignored me, so I give you one more chance to redeem yourself. You demand evidence from us. We've given it to you. I linked you to an ENTIRE WEB PAGE of physical evidence for atheism, with too many arguments to list.
Do the same. Or you will continue to lose this argument.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Objective morality does not exist. It is not possible outside of human consensus. If the Earth were to be wiped out (say by an asteroid), if all humans ceased to exist, the morality of "thou shalt not kill" or "covet thy neighbour's wife" would become utterly devoid of meaning.
Furthermore, if humans were to be the only sentient beings in the universe, the word "meaning" itself would become meaningless.
Your argument for objective morality is without merit.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Indeed (although you confuse objective truth with objective reality).
> The solution to that problem god is the ultimate standard of truth.
No, it is more plausible that the laws of physics (i.e. of the universe) are the ultimate standard of truth, than that it is supernatural phenomena.
As I have demonstrated, the agency at the origin of these laws is statistically unlikely to be what you think of as a god, and exponentially less likely to be the god you want as you make more and more unproven (and I mean 6-sigma) statements about him.
Thus your argument for the origin of objective truth is without merit.
Your failure is compounded by the non-sequitur of stating that the universe must have a creator and that god must not have a creator in the same dogmatic breath.
You made my point yourself Henrik:
> Faith in God is a uniquely human feature
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
But this kind of linguistic arm-twisting does not put away the valid question if God exists. And to answer that question both positively or negatively, one is in need of arguments. The existence of God can be investigated through human reasoning and observation.
Objective truth exists as most would affirm, but indeed it is impossible to know it in full because of the limits of human understanding. Some things, like the reliability of our senses and the reality of the universe, we just have to assume in faith. To conclude from this however that assertions like Paris is the capital of France cannot be true or false because France could be an illusion, is absurd and reductionist. In reality no human being lives that way.
(cont.)
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
That seems to mean anyone not a Fascist. Or have you redefined that as well. You did call the Roman Empire fascist on another thread where you went strange.
Died, another peculiar way of avoiding the truth. Murdered is the correct term. And no. Most were Catholics. The Poles were the majority and they were mostly Catholic. Jews were next in absolute numbers.
Lying again I see. Millions were murdered. This is exceedingly well documented.>>
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
First of all, we can know some level of the truth through credible evidence. By observing and reasoning we can make a certain world view more plausible, more credible. Atheism by definition cannot rest on any plausibility, because it cannot be validated in any way.
Second, atheism as lack of belief is self-defeating. There is no way in knowing that atheism even exists, or that its definition is correct. Worse yet, the atheist can never refute any arguments for the existence of God, because he does not believe that things like evidence and proof could be sufficient for him to know the truth about God, ar any truth at all.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
In fact the plausibility of this is implied by the atheist position that objective truth cannot be known naturally. Supernatural revelation is thus completely consistent with the atheists lack of belief due to inaccessibility of truth though natural reasoning.
Because of this, the conclusion is warranted that atheism is not the most rational position to take , because of the wilfull ignorance of these possibilities to learn about truth. That makes atheism irrational.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
No. I have the sneaking suspicion that in Israel they call the main opposition, Arabs.
No and neither did the French that turned Jews over to the Nazis.
I haven't seen one I am enthralled with but I am not obsessed either.
Oh dear on the other rant you acted as if it was Catholics and I was sure I could get on both your lists as I was Catholic before becoming an Agnostic. However, just for you, I can call myself a jewish Agnostic.>>
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
I said it was an ethic group. Yes there are Christians that are ethnic Jews. Not many but some.
Since you insist I am one then I must know. However it isn't a cult. Its a religion. Several religions in fact just as Protestants have more than one religion.
I guess you just don't have any clue at all about being a decent human.
Ethelred
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Why would that be? It is quite possible that things like love and tolerance are objectively good values even if humans do not exist. In fact you are begging the question for atheism. By assuming there is nothing beside nature, you commit a logical fallacy.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Stay away from that shit. It's bad for you.
Running around words instead of using something that at least remotely resembles facts is just a Philosophical Circle Jerk. Tiresome, pointless, and an idiotic waste of time.
Especially with someone the uses special definitions that are carefully chosen to evade rational discourse. Kind of like using German philosophical words to avoid clarity.
Oh goody. You comprehend the concept of objective reality. Try sticking to that an you have an easier time of it with Henrik.
And damn every bloody one of them believes in an objective reality.
Ethelred
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
This statement is problematic. First of all, where do the laws of physics come from? Everything that begins to exist has a cause, including the laws of nature. Second, this is also begging the question for atheism. You do not know that physical reality is the only reality that exists, you just assume it.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
As far as we know these things do not exist without humans, so no, wrong.
You don't know what logical fallacy means... you throw the term around like you do but in reality you have no notion of logic or reason. To assume that all that exists is natural (as opposed to supernatural) is merely an initial assumption that we take based on the evidence. There is no credible evidence for the supernatural, so we assume that there is no such thing as the super natural and we take that as axiomatic as part of the context that we use to establish truth relative to that context.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: not rated yet
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
(Deathclock, Jan 16 2012)
So some level of knowledge is possible with natural things according to you. The same is possible with the existence of God or the supernatural.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
That is a fallacious argument from ignorance, and provides no logical reason why things like love and tolerance cannot exist independently of human existence.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
How would you know that? According to your earlier admission you do not believe in things like proof. You are not in a position to evaluate any argument for the existence of God, because you deny that anything you claim could be proven true or false.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
How can there be any physical evidence for a personal absence of belief? To think that anything could be proof for an absence is illogical and self-refuting.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
To recap: if an asteroid were to extinguish humankind (and assuming no sentient aliens), the universe would become meaningless, a-moral and inexplicable by definition (indeed, there would be no one to do the explaining).
To illustrate with the case of your specific religion: if the human race did not exist, the 10 commandments would be meaningless.
Therefore premise 1 and 2 are without merit. As are all subsequent arguments built on these foundations, with no additional refutations needed.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Why? can you provide any logical argument for that assertion? In fact you commit the logical fallacy of begging the question by assuming atheism is true.
God could have sufficient reasons to create even an empty universe where love would be the primary directive, simply because He is love.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Not RE-defining, just defining. Why you're bringing this up again, I have no idea, because this has been discussed and agreed upon already. Atheism cannot be validated. We know. It's completely irrelevant.
Reasoning? Sure. Observation? Absolutely not.
Regarding reasoning, you have to be aware that it's still limited by the subjective human experience. Show me observational evidence for God.
Before you bring up the whole "God needs to exist for objectivity to exist, and because this is an objective statement, God must exist", that's just more of your flawed, circular hand-waving. We don't know for a fact that's objective.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
The same could be said for Christianity.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Guilty once again of trying to form an argument from a huge IF statement.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
You would have to prove that love exists if there aren't people around to define it to say that. There's no logical fallacy because love is an emergent property of humanity.
Propose a logical way for love to exist without beings around to enact it. You need an anthropomorphic basis for love to exist.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Go back and read again. He said there can't be any such thing as proof, due to our subjective experience. Evidence is perfectly fine, because it's not absolute and uses logic as a means to making claims and assumptions.
Proposition: The Great Flood happened
Fact 1: No physical or observational (ie, the Egyptians) evidence for it.
You can whittle down any religion like this by disproving the claims it makes.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
By assuming there is something beside nature, you commit a logical fallacy. You fail the burden of proof test, not me, under any formal logic framework.
> sufficient reasons to create even an empty universe where love would be the primary directive
Nonsense. In the absence of humans, there would be no one to give love to or to receive love from.
There would be no one but the creator to even know what the definition of love is, no possible manifestation or any way to make it known that the concept exists. The directive would apply to no one - it would be impotent in the most literal sense.
Therefore your hypothetical god could only love himself.
The same goes for morality and therefore as demonstrated, objective morality does not exist.
You have utterly lost the entire argument without recourse. End of the line.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
This proves that you have not really read or comprehended the moral argument. In neither premise 1 nor 2 do I presuppose the existence of God.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
It was your statement that love cannot exist independent from humans or aliens. He who avers, must prove. Until you do that, the existence of love is quite rational if love is simply an attribute of God.
We are not discussing the flood. The flood has nothing to do with the moral argument for the existence of God. Get your thoughts back on track.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Then what evidence do you have against the evidence for the existence of God? Please provide credible evidence that either:
a. moral values that are independent of people's opinion or biology can exist without God
b. That no moral values do exist that are independent of human opinion or biology.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Do you even listen to yourself? Say these words out loud and hear how completely ridiculous you sound.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Should I go on? You have resorted to being completely fucking ridiculous in your arguments, and you have lost, many times over. I don't know why you keep posting... for that matter I don't know why I keep posting.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Not as ridiculous as an atheistic cat or a goldfish with a lack of belief in God. You said yourself that it is distinctly possible that you are insane.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Perhaps because being an atheist, you are irrational and have no means of validating your own motives.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
That is not what I said. If God exists, then with Him being a conscious Mind, He can be a creature of infinite love. So there is no logical contradiction between the existence of love and the absence of humans.
In fact, in an atheistic universe an immaterial quality such as love would not even exist, because inert matter cannot give rise to immaterial values.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Again, you're using what you're trying to prove as the foundation of your argument. Stop it. You do realize there's no way to logically refute "love can exist without people because God says so", right? Circular reasoning.
That's exactly what you asked for: physical evidence for a lack of belief. I don't believe because physical evidence points to your belief system being completely false and making shit up.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
The first universities in Europe were founded by Christians. Many famous scientists and philosophers were Christians. A Christian discovered the laws of motion. A Christian invented Calculus. A Christian invented the taxonomy of evolutionary species. A Christian discovered the laws of natural selection and genetic variability. A Christian first formulated the theory of the big bang. etc etc.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
The very foundation of morality stems from empathy. Empathy is a survival instinct. We know what we don't want to have happen to us to ensure our survival and through communication, we've figured out that others have these feelings as well and we respect those. Without life, there is no empathy, because it's an emergent property.
If God exists and the universe exists devoid of life, God cannot feel empathy, because there is nothing to empathize with.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
No I asked evidence against evidence for the existence of God, like the moral argument. That implies evidence against premise 1 or 2.
The flood is not relevant for Gods existence, it could only be relevant in a discussion about Biblical inerrancy.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Furthermore the flood is described in a book purported to be the word of god, but the flood never happened and so someone lied. This is also a topic for discussion of the morality of god or at least of those who created him and those who choose to believe in him.
You dont want to discuss the flood because it proves your god doesn't exist.Everything we know about henriks god we get from the book. If the book is full of lies then either henriks god is a liar or his god doesn't exist. Either way henrik loses.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Proof?
Morality is about a distinction between good and evil. Empathy and other feelings are subjective and cannot be measured or validated. At best this would provide a relative moral foundation, but not an objective one, that is independent of human feelings and opinions. A murderer could simply say that he does not feel any empathy for his victims.
But we know that child rape is objectively wrong, even if one could not feel empathy for the child that was abused. If not, in court all the rapist would have to do is claim a lack of empathy.
I think premise 2 is more rational than the belief that moral values rest on subjective human feelings. If they do, moral values would be an illusion.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
I'll point you to your own words from the last page-
By your very own circular reasoning, if the word of God is not true, then its description of him cannot be regarded as true.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Without empathy, every species on earth would have killed itself off a long time ago. You said it yourself below, regarding the murderer. I'm honestly a bit flabbergasted at your questioning of the role of empathy on survival.
I disagree.
http://www.washin...ory.html
Which supports my position, not yours.
He's the minority and is judged by what the majority deems acceptable, aka subjective morality.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
The same stands here that stands for the murderer. The rapist is the minority.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
If Hitler had convinced the whole earth that the Holocaust was fine and dandy, it wouldn't be because that's what everybody truly thinks, it would be through coercion, going AGAINST their most primal instincts.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
The majority in nazi Germany consented to the dehumanization, rounding up and killing of the Jews. Does that make the holocaust any more acceptable? No. In fact the holocaust is evil even if the whole world would have been convinced otherwise by Hitler. That pretty much invalidates your morality by majority vote. Human crowds are a poor source for sound morals.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
I am questioning the role of empathy in the establishment of moral values and duties. A rapist or murderer is in jail not because of a lack of empathy, but because he committed a henious crime and was judged based on clear moral laws, distinguishing between good and evil objectively. The law is not concerned with empathy for the victim, but the enforcement of justice.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
That is just guessing, you have no way of knowing that. In fact anti-semitism was and is widespread in Europe. The hatred for the Jews was a core theme of nazi's, but that did not stop the majority of voters to vote him into office. Even on this site it has reared its ugly head.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Proof?
What made him commit the crime in the first place? His lack of empathy for his victim.
Not sure what you're getting at here. So you're saying the teachings of Jesus are illogical? Duh.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
How does that flow logically from anything? Far more likely is that rapists rape because of uncontrolled lust or the desire to control others sexually. A lack of empathy does not make anyone a murderer, but a lack of basic moral values definately is required.
No, I am saying that empathy cannot explain a lot of moral behavior, such as altruism and Christian values such as love and self-sacrifice. Empathy is a very egocentric basis for morality, because it implies that without empathy, the other person would not be worth treating well. There are in fact many people who completely lack empathy for others, but do not rape or murder because they simply know it's evil.
Finally, even if evolution is responsible for moral values, then God could have simply used empathy to reveal his values to us. So in now way does empathy invalidate moral values as objective truths.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
http://www.sulliv...ters.htm
-Your religion was RESPONSIBLE for the holocaust. It had conditioned the people to hate the christ-killers for 2 millenia. The holocaust was only the latest and greatest of a long line of pogrom.
Its funny henrik how you can forget what you are told in the space of only a few hundred posts. Like xians can forget things like WHY the holocaust happened in only a few generations.
http://en.wikiped..._of_John
John made jews christ-killers so that xians would become jew-killers. Jews invented religion-mandated overgrowth which required that an even more vile religion be created to counter it.
And now there is islam which threatens more pogrom.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Unfalsifiable claim. That's the same as a proponent of intelligent design coming to a compromise with evolutionists by saying evolution is God's method of creation.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
"Hence it is argued[who?] that "the Jews" properly refers to the Jewish religious authorities (Sanhedrin), and not the Jewish people as a whole. It is because of this controversy that some modern English translations, such as Today's New International Version, remove the term "Jews" and replace it with more specific terms to avoid anti-Semitic connotations."
-So just now they are retranslating it to skew its original, constantinian wording?
"Most critics of these translations, while conceding this point, argue that the context (since it is obvious that Jesus, John himself, and the other disciples were all Jews) makes John's true meaning sufficiently clear, and that a literal translation is preferred."
-But the People who originally wrote John werent too concerned about context. They wrote it to make jews the enemies of the people, to counter the spread of that religion before it undermined the west.
They did a very good job. The holocaust is exhibit #1.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
"They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did. ... You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires."
-Had jews followed jesus they would no longer have been jews. Like marranos. They killed jesus, according to the bible, because he rode into their holy city on its holiest of holidays and declared that he was not just their king, he was their GOD.
"38 "What is truth?" retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, "I find no basis for a charge against him. 39 But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release 'the king of the Jews'?"
40 They shouted back, "No, not him! Give us Barabbas!"
-Whoever wrote this book was VERY specific.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
You are raising many interesting questions, which deserve an honest answer. Christendom's history is indeed full of crimes that are contrary to the core message of the gospel. But whatever evil deeds people commit, they are also an illustration of how sinful humans are. However I suggest to use another thread. Like you said, there is a time for everything. Be blessed.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
No need to shout. I am not a member of any religious movement, and I am not promoting any form of religion. Jesus did not come to establish a new religion at all. There were plenty of religions around when He appeared. In fact Jesus was a major critic of religion. Religion cannot save anyone, only Jesus can save a person.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (8)
That's a load of crock. You've been promoting Christianity with your blatant use of the word "God" and a plethora of other characteristics specific to the nature of the God of the Christian Bible. Don't think you're fooling anyone.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
I believe that some People could be so desperate to save Their own tribe that They would endeavor to conquer the world. And I believe They would be ruthless enough to concoct the major religions in order to assist Them in accomplishing this Task.
These doomsday weapons themselves now endanger the world. But not to worry; I BELIEVE that Leaders have these things all worked out. As usual.
Henrik, forced reproduction as a method of conquest was an inevitable development. You could say it was naturally selected for. A tribe which could grow faster would tend to prevail in conflict. But this also made events like the holocaust inevitable. This is the tragic reality of the human equation.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
And as for "multi-cellularity" -- they are observing behaviors that are already embedded, encoded, prepared to initiate the behaviors they observe.
And as for this quote :
"Considering that trillions of one-celled organisms lived on Earth for millions of years, it seems like it should have, Ratcliff says."
Prove it. A cell, just one cell, has a staggeringly complex range of mechanisms that are ALREADY encoded in a phenomenally coordinated and "super-intelligent" fashion.
That cells just sprang up out of chemicals to begin with is a supreme act of faith. It is a religious belief on the part of scientists and their masses of slavering believers.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
Backed in a corner, now you lie to save yourself: after hundreds of posts, it is painfully obvious that you, Henrik, do presuppose the existence of god.
But you would still have lost if you did not: I have demonstrated that premise 1 and 2 cannot be logically correct.
That is because logical arguments built on false premises are sophistry. It is a key element of science fiction. You should know this.
You lack logical depth as well as rigour. I suggest you read the intellectual giants of your faith, starting with Teilhard de Chardin (atheists, do this too - sparring with his ideas is much, much more challenging than with this intellectual dwarf).
For now though, you are utterly defeated on all logical grounds, and all you have left is your continuing idle speculation.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
I have aready proven this:
If humans did not exist, the 10 commandments would be meaningless.
There is no logical way to disprove this statement. Your only counter-argument is doubly idle speculation on a hypotethical god's hypothetical intentions. Therefore you have still lost the argument.
Why wouldn't you accept that your faith is stronger than logical deduction?
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (8)
Liposomes spontaneously form in solution. I'm not convinced you grasp how simplistic the first life must have been. Even the simplest of bacteria didn't magically form. Those came later.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (2)
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
Then please provide evidence as to why the following moral framework, which is one of many that are completely god-free, is not perfectly valid:
The economist's view:
In all the universe, sentient life is so rare it is easily a trillion times more valuable than gold. Therefore all the wealth (including oil, ahm!) and pleasures in the world do not justify the suffering of a single soul; thus justice is necessary to prevent suffering.
If you can't show this moral framework to be immoral (note: specifically immoral - you don't need to like it for it to be valid), then your argument is proven false for yet another reason and this whole thread concludes (again) with your utter defeat.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
This is also why free markets can never work for long. Leaders will always choose to collude, eventually, rather than compete, because it just makes sense. Politically speaking this is called diplomacy. But this sort of diplomacy happened a very long time ago, when leaders of opposing tribes realized that their true enemies were not each other but the people they governed. The people who would always reproduce themselves into misery and then blame their leaders for their suffering.
The Solution was easy. Leaders can collude to set their people against one another in Constructive and Manageable ways. By understanding that the people were the true enemies of leaders everywhere, their mutual problems could at last be solved.
The Meme spread worldwide. Leaders intermarried. A new Tribe was born.
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
But everything you know of Jesus comes from the book, and it is the book which condones and encourages the most immoral of things. There is no denying this.
For instance the book ENABLES believers to kill unbelievers without remorse, because it defines them as satanists. Per Jesus himself. This facilitates immoral actions does it not?Jesus is an amalgam of many precursors. The myth was designed with very specific sociopolitical intentions. This is clear from what the myth enabled, and what might have happened without it.The JEWISH religion, specifically. Yes?
Jan 21, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Jesus the myth- nothing new under the Son.
You can shovel your way through this:
http://en.wikiped...ythology
-Or you can watch a nice movie:
http://www.youtub...a_player
-in 3 pieces just like your god-
Jan 22, 2012
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
As in the royal intermarriages of England, Germany, Spain, and France. A lot of first cousin inbreeding, then came marital unions with other countries. The British royals are really of German extraction. It's no wonder the world is upside down. It was designed by chromosomal monsters.
Jan 22, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
"pointless verbiage" is a close call for you then, FrankHerbert
Jan 22, 2012
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
-Anyone, anywhere, who entertains the idea that there is a god worth believing in, must share in the responsibility for events such as this. Your pleasant fantasies only legitimize the fantasies of others, and make horrors such as this possible. Your indulgence makes them INEVITABLE.
Deny the lie that there is a god. Do your part to bring peace to the world.
Jan 22, 2012
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
http://funpreside...anistan/
-No trees, no arable land, no large animals; a vast swath from north africa through the middle east, the balkans, and eastward as far as the gobi desert, ruined long ago through mans natural proclivities. These People saved the world from this, by restricting growth. They divided humanity up and sent them against one another in Orderly ways.
Youre right - this is most apparent in medieval europe. Rulers often didnt even speak the same language as their subjects. It was as if the mafia ruled a continent.
Jan 22, 2012
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (3)
Instead of communal farming which had ruined so much of the world, euro Leaders established serfdom which restricted people to their own little plots of land and kept them always on the verge of starvation. Borders were constantly moving as Leaders staged small, Prearranged conflicts to Manage the people and prevent overgrowth.
These Leaders were all related, and all were descended from Charlemagne, who originally united the continent.
Jan 22, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Jan 22, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Jan 22, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
single-celled organisms
single celled organism is not single celled organism ;p
Jan 22, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
Jan 22, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
make sacrifices for the common good,
now this is a massive statement
Jan 22, 2012
Rank: 2.7 / 5 (3)
Jan 22, 2012
Rank: 3.5 / 5 (2)
Jan 22, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Jan 22, 2012
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (2)
Jan 22, 2012
Rank: 4 / 5 (1)
Jan 22, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
http://www.popula.../1227842
Jan 22, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
Scalar waves are capable of this.
Popular Mechanics is a CIA rag and moreover that article was penned by Zionist Chertof's cousin. No ulterior motives there, right? You let Madoff manage your pension too?
Jan 22, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
...And the (allegedly Christian) Church only took 300 years to get around to admitting that his ideas were not, after all, incompatible with their teachings....
Jan 22, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
-------------
Mala Mucika:It's difficult to tell exactly what you are meaning in your posts, but this part seems to be addressing the famous problem of "squaring the circle". You also seem to be asserting that the circle can be squared, but it was proven impossible in 1882.
(If this is not your assertion, please post more clearly, thanks.)
Jan 23, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Jan 23, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
Jan 23, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Jan 23, 2012
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Jan 23, 2012
Rank: not rated yet