REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Did I miss where that requirement was written?

Apparantly so. It was written in your genes. Even the "modern" religions, monotheistic religions, have changed and been reinterpreted over and over from culture to culture, generation to generation, civilization to civilization.

[Blackheart]

As regards "evidence" for god, there are 2 basic kinds of eveidence.

Subjective, and objective.

As far as I know, no one has ever stumbled across any objective evidence for god, though I'm sure there's plenty of subjective evidence.

The problem with subjective evidence is, it's good enough for some people. But it doesn't apply equally to everyone. Especially someone who bases their view from a skeptical point.

Following that train of thought, someone shouldn't be surprised when people discount arguments about morality based on subjective evidence...

Objective evidence can be gone back to, and re-tested. By anyone. And they will get the same results. There may be some disagreement over specifics, but it's very rare that there is a revolutionary shift in models. Especially without a major new discovery of new evidence or new techniques of analysis.

So based on the best objective evidence, "Modern" humans have been around for at least 100,000 years. Hominids, human-like creatures, for around 2-5 million, depending on how hominid is defined...

That doesn't square very well with the accounts in genisis.

Come to think of it.... I haven't seen any talking snakes around either... doubtless that was just an allegory however...

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

*(voice from behind) I'm a talking Snake!*

Shut up you

*sorry *

[inked]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Atheism might one day become dogmatic. That is a long way off yet.

Agnosticism is a bit less likely to do so. It's hard to proclaim that "this is so" when the central tenant is "I don't know".

Not to mention that neither of those two philosphies makes any moral claims or strictures. I'm sure people will start trying to tack them on eventually, but again it's rather difficult when you are starting from a position rooted in skepticism...

BH,

My point exactly. If there is no moral stricture or claim inherent in atheism or agnosticism, where do moral imperatives arise?

And, as is obvious from multiple threads on this forum, agnostics and atheists DO make moral strictures and claims on everything from abstinence-only education to political "oughts". Why?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Apparantly so. It was written in your genes.

*read BH's next post*

*realizes BH's statement quoted above is purely subjective*

*agrees with BH's statement: "The problem with subjective evidence is, it's good enough for some people. But it doesn't apply equally to everyone. Especially someone who bases their view from a skeptical point."

*decides that the subjective evidence for BH's statement "It was written in your genes" is NOT good enough for her to believe it*

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by rian

*decides that the subjective evidence for BH's statement "It was written in your genes" is NOT good enough for her to believe it*

that is an objective statement - it is proven human nature to question, adapt and revise previous thinking

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

As regards "evidence" for god, there are 2 basic kinds of eveidence.

Subjective, and objective.

As far as I know, no one has ever stumbled across any objective evidence for god, though I'm sure there's plenty of subjective evidence.

The problem with subjective evidence is, it's good enough for some people. But it doesn't apply equally to everyone. Especially someone who bases their view from a skeptical point.

Following that train of thought, someone shouldn't be surprised when people discount arguments about morality based on subjective evidence...

I agree with this analysis.

And I would like to point out that it goes both ways So since I agree with BH's statement, I'll use it and substitute "god NOT existing" for "god" to make a statement of my own. Here goes:

As regards "evidence" for god NOT existing, there are 2 basic kinds of evidence.

Subjective, and objective.

As far as I know, no one has ever stumbled across any objective evidence for god NOT existing, though I'm sure there's plenty of subjective evidence.

The problem with subjective evidence is, it's good enough for some people. But it doesn't apply equally to everyone. Especially someone who bases their view from a skeptical point.

Following that train of thought, someone shouldn't be surprised when people discount arguments about morality based on subjective evidence...

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by inked

If there is no moral stricture or claim inherent in atheism

here we go again who says there is no moral structure in atheism? buddhism is an atheistic religion, and IMO buddhists have a much higher moral standing than many theistic religious people, and how about taoists? taoism is another moral religion that is entirely atheistic

who was it that said in a thread somewhere that they hated having to keep reposting something? was it me? hmm...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The Book of Revelation, the awesome portrait we have of the End Times, was given to John in a vision. He saw these things with his own eyes. Visions correspond to reality, just as spiritually delivered dreams can be. However, they are frequently symbolic.

But there's another angle here, Lief. Yes, they can be "symbolic". But also, they can be actual hard fact, but the person seeing the vision is unaware of what some of the things are, because they hadn't been invented yet.

If we could zip into the future and take some video of everyday life, I'm sure we'd be talking just like John did in Revelation - "I saw this thing and it was like this". We wouldn't know the name of it, because it hadn't been invented yet. We could just look at it and say it was "like" something we already know.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Um... I'm a bit rusty with my math, but I think that still equals 1.

Maybe you meant the equation a little differently?

(EDIT: - oh I see... your first time citing it, you gave 10 to the 2017th... WHOLE different number!! )

Eep!

My goodness, two terribly dumb mistakes pointed out today! (Fat Middle pointed out another that no one else had caught, and it was a DOOZY! FM, don't tell, please!!! )

I need some strong tea!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

yes but surely, if he is all powerful as (some) christians would have me believe, how did he not destine for sdaid cat to get run over?

I wanted to bump this question, since IMHO it's an excellent one. Hope to get to it in a bit - off to lunch now!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

So I guess you infer that since I believe in evolution - I would believe what he says?

Since you don't seem to be willing to even think about any information I provide from creationist scientists, I thought you might be willing to think about information I provide from evolutionist scientists.

It appears that this is not the case.

It appears that you won't consider ANY information I provide from ANY scientist, no matter WHAT their background. So I guess it's just a waste of my time and yours for me to answer questions from you

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by inked

BH,

My point exactly. If there is no moral stricture or claim inherent in atheism or agnosticism, where do moral imperatives arise?

And, as is obvious from multiple threads on this forum, agnostics and atheists DO make moral strictures and claims on everything from abstinence-only education to political "oughts". Why?

Morality arises from survival needs. Plain and simple. It's wrong to kill people because it is contradictory to individual and species survival. The noteworthy exceptions are based pretty much along those lines.

That's one of the reasons why you find so much overlap between liberal, intellectual, and ... shall we say "non-theistic" thinking. If you think there's a big daddy in the sky, why should you be worried about raising global temperatures and flooding hundreds of thousands of miles of coastland causing widespread famine... Everything is going to turn out for the best anyway.... So let's fire up those coal power plants and buy some more SUV's... And have more babies than we can reasonably support while we're at it.

There's some very interesting work going on with primate research. Troops of primates often have mores, such as an idea of basic "fairness". It's pretty easy to see how these are linked ot survival of the species, since most primates aren't nearly as complicated in their social structure.

That's the problem with "inteligence". It makes things complicated.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by blackheart

That's the problem with "inteligence". It makes things complicated

hehe you just reminded me of a joke

......*scurries off to joke thread*

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Since you don't seem to be willing to even think about any information I provide from creationist scientists, I thought you might be willing to think about information I provide from evolutionist scientists.

It appears that this is not the case.

It appears that you won't consider ANY information I provide from ANY scientist, no matter WHAT their background. So I guess it's just a waste of my time and yours for me to answer questions from you

I am in the middle of working and there are a bunch of things that have been said, but I figured I'd take a break and address this comment. You see Rian - this is the part you seem to not understand. It has nothing to do with the scientist or their belief of whether they support evolution, whether they are are christian or whether they are atheist. The scientist isn't what matters in science - it's the statements and science itself that matters. I just happen to disagree with him. You might find it amazing - but I do not base my conclusions on what ideas the scientist supports - but on the ideas themselves. Wouldn't you agree that the scientist isn't what matters - but the science itself?

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

*decides that the subjective evidence for BH's statement "It was written in your genes" is NOT good enough for her to believe it*

Apparantly you misunderstood the difference between subjective and objective again.

You can objectively go to a lab, and verify that you do indeed have genetic material.

You can also go and do the work and verify that your ancestors have genetic material that is similar in predictable ways.

You can also objectively verify genetic similarities between you and other primates.

Then you can go and objectively verify that those primates engage in similar behaviors.

You can go and objectively verify that primates change their social behaviors in response to their environment.

You can go and objectively verify that human interpretations of spirituality have changed.

You can go and objectively verify that these changes in spirituality are in response to changes in the environment.

You can go and objectively verify the evidence supporting survival of the fittest.

You can go and objectively verfiy the evidence supporting social theories stating that individuals who are unable to adjust to changes in society do not adapt well, and do not prosper.

You can THEN make a subjective decision based on objective evidence that all the people who were too backwards, fearful, inflexible, irrational, or otherwise incapable of adjusting their spiritual outlook to suit changing environments and social conditions died off, leaving those with the ability to do so to pass this capability on to their offspring, thus writing it in their genes.

One can hardly wait for the next several cycles...

[inked]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Morality arises from survival needs. Plain and simple. It's wrong to kill people because it is contradictory to individual and species survival. The noteworthy exceptions are based pretty much along those lines.

That's one of the reasons why you find so much overlap between liberal, intellectual, and ... shall we say "non-theistic" thinking. If you think there's a big daddy in the sky, why should you be worried about raising global temperatures and flooding hundreds of thousands of miles of coastland causing widespread famine... Everything is going to turn out for the best anyway.... So let's fire up those coal power plants and buy some more SUV's... And have more babies than we can reasonably support while we're at it.

There's some very interesting work going on with primate research. Troops of primates often have mores, such as an idea of basic "fairness". It's pretty easy to see how these are linked ot survival of the species, since most primates aren't nearly as complicated in their social structure.

That's the problem with "inteligence". It makes things complicated.

Prove that morality arises from survival needs, Blackheart.
Subject your rationale to the same test you propose for theistic morals and Christian morals.
Otherwise, that is as much a faith statement as the theistic origin or Christian origin of morals.

And you are right, intelligence does complicate the picture.

[hectorberlioz]

nevermind

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Apparantly you misunderstood the difference between subjective and objective again.

Apparently not
Or I'll just say I understand what a subjective conclusion is, and apparently you don't!

I'll add numbers to your statement for reference purposes:

Originally Posted by BH

1. You can objectively go to a lab, and verify that you do indeed have genetic material.

2. You can also go and do the work and verify that your ancestors have genetic material that is similar in predictable ways.

3. You can also objectively verify genetic similarities between you and other primates.

4. Then you can go and objectively verify that those primates engage in similar behaviors.

5. You can go and objectively verify that primates change their social behaviors in response to their environment.

6. You can go and objectively verify that human interpretations of spirituality have changed.

7. You can go and objectively verify that these changes in spirituality are in response to changes in the environment.

8. You can go and objectively verify the evidence supporting survival of the fittest.

9. You can go and objectively verfiy the evidence supporting social theories stating that individuals who are unable to adjust to changes in society do not adapt well, and do not prosper.

10. You can THEN make a subjective decision based on objective evidence that all the people who were too backwards, fearful, inflexible, irrational, or otherwise incapable of adjusting their spiritual outlook to suit changing environments and social conditions died off, leaving those with the ability to do so to pass this capability on to their offspring, thus writing it in their genes.

1. granted
2. depends what you mean by "ancestors"
3. sure
4. as well as dissimilar
5. ok
6. fine
7. I disagree! at least if you're saying the changes are solely in response to the environment.
8. (this one always makes me wonder a bit about some evolutionists - they seem to often act like it's some big scientific discovery!)
9. This depends upon the definition of "prosper". I doubt that your definition and mine match.

10. Your conclusion is entirely without merit, IMO. You're apparently making two HUGE (and IMO, erroneous) assumptions -
1. ALL behavior is driven by genes.
2. Behavior of the parents can be passed on to the children, in addition to things like large ears. (this reminds me of pangenes! the long-disproven idea of changes thru use can be passed on to the offspring.) How can things like "backwardness" (or lack thereof), to use a word from your post, be passed on to kids? Really, I don't see how you can possibly claim this.

I happen to disagree with your assumptions. They are assumptions, nothing more, and I make different ones based on the objective evidence I see. And you can list all the objective evidence you want, but if your conclusion is subjective, that's the important thing. Your conclusion is definitely subjective and unfounded, IMHO, and I don't agree with it.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

If you think there's a big daddy in the sky, why should you be worried about raising global temperatures and flooding hundreds of thousands of miles of coastland causing widespread famine...

I'll tell you why - because the "big daddy" said to take care of the earth!

(I swear, inky, I feel like uttering the professor's words in the last sentence of the next-to-last paragraph of LWW here so often!! )