I Can't Shake It! Wtf Is Wrong With Me?

[Ouroboros]

There is no universal objective morality, as I've shown in an ignored by you post above somewhere in this mess.*

He's ignoring a lot which has been said. I'm not going to stop the discussion here, but I think it's getting fairly obvious that LNC is not here to discuss, but only to tell us what we're supposed to believe. Honestly, I don't think anyone of us can get through to him. Everyone here can make up their own mind about it, but I consider LNC a lost cause. Just FYI.

[agnosticator]

Hey LNC,

 

We reject your transcendent ontology as a basis for morality, because it is imaginary (of the mind) and subjective. It does not reside within reality, but in the imaginary supernatural. Human beings and animals reside within reality, and they are the only objective component of morality. All morality originates from these beings. Come join us in the real world.

[chefranden]

Is it because free agency is the highest value? Give me freedom, or give me death?

 

Phanta

 

 

Very good point. Why does the free will of the criminal always trump the free will of the victim?

 

I'm sure that the Amalekites willed that they be allowed to live in peace by their religious nut case neighbors. Is it the free will of a woman to be raped? Is the free will of child sex slaves to be child sex slaves?

 

Why does God need to allow the criminal to carry out his intended act? God stayed Abraham's hand from slaying Issac because Abraham proved his bloody allegiance to God without actually sticking the knife in his kid. God could save all victims from the consequences of crime without endangering free will.

 

I know I'm getting old, but I can't remember any scripture that supports free will -- especially as the major ethical value of Bible God.

 

Edit: Turn or burn is your free will choice. Ooo ooo! I choose burn.

[Antlerman]

I do believe that evolution can explain some changes over time; however, it is yet to be proved that evolution has creative ability, which is required to prove before evolution can be used to explain much of what we see in nature.

I thought you said belief without evidence is foolish? Could you offer some evidence that this above is the shared opinion of the majority of the world’s scientists, or is this just some unfounded belief you picked up from some religious hacks? There are mountains of evidence that this is exactly how all the species on this planet came to be in their present forms. Your rejection of that is not based on any sort of valid reason that science, which actually does directly examine the evidence has suggested anywhere (this as contrasted with merely leaping about with a series of logic arguments of why this must be invalid because it somehow doesn’t makes sense to you).

 

This is what I mean by a belief based on denial. Citing some pseudo-scientist will not impress me, so don’t bother. Your faith is based on the denial of evidence, not created or supported through it. You have to reject the majority opinion of qualified specialists in order to feel comfortable in how you choose to believe. You’re so called evidences, are nothing more that manufactured arguments you feel necessary to tell yourself to justify your religious beliefs because you in fact don’t have a genuine faith.

 

Would you call Holocaust deniers people of faith? I wouldn’t. Nor do I you.

 

Why can’t faith be accepting facts, and finding reasons to have hope in the face of it? Say you can do that, then you’ll have my ears. Exhibit this junk, you’ll never persuade me to “believe”. I refuse to blind myself to reality in order to support a traditional way of believing because it feel good to me for whatever reason. You want to talk, you want to witness the value, then show me you accept facts first. Because having to reject legitimate science and line up a bunch of pseudo-scientists behind me in order to feel justified in believing something is not going to happen. That's not faith. That's crap. I don't reject faith, I reject the way of thinking you have adopted.

[shantonu]

I just don't get it. Why is anyone engaging with this fool when he lacks the courage of his convictions?

 

If he believes that the Bible is the Word of God, let him defend what the Bible says on its own terms. I haven't made any reference to any source outside the Bible. I take the 6th Commandment as a legitimate authority (though I don't think that authority is exlusive).

 

I've never mentioned Darwin, or evolution, or science of any kind. Yet LNC will not answer a simple question.

 

How can we get to the abstract questions if we can't get a straight answer on the direct questions? It's really a joke, and not a very funny one. I hope people realize that there are Christians who have more courage than this guy and who have real arguments--arguments that we might not agree with but should respect.

[LNC]

Not so. Atheism is an element that appears in a wide variety of worldviews.

 

I am a Humanist. I do not look to either Humanism or Atheism if I want to ponder the origins of the universe. For that, I investigate the physical sciences.

 

Yet, that doesn't mean that atheism is not a worldview in and of itself. However, given what you claim, atheism still informs your worldview with elements that are central to what you believe does it not?

 

Regarding the pondering of the origin of the universe, physical sciences can only take you so far, at this time it is back to Planck time, anything prior to that is in the realm of metaphysics at this point.

 

I don't think it does, quite frankly. We're here. That's all I'm really concerned about. It probably existed prior to 1957, and will probably continue to exist after My physical body dies, but beyond that, I don't need to know how old it is, where it came from, or where it's going.

 

This is what I enjoy about interacting with atheists. In one breath they will say that creationists limit scientific inquiry by bringing God into the equation, yet, in another breath will say that we don't have to answer major questions like how the universe came into existence because you don't like the implications of the answers that you may find. That was the same that Fred Hoyle rejected the Big Bang for so long, he didn't like the metaphysical implications to his atheist worldview.

 

Unsupported assertion. Produce the data that indicates that your god exists and is "not physical".

 

Not so fast, you were the one who made the initial unsupported assertion that God is complex and therefore requires a creator. Please address that and then we can address your question.

 

I disagree. I think it's a record of the character and standards of the Bible's human authors.

Another assertion that you need to back up. How do you come to this conclusion?

 

LNC, what part of Ex-Christian do you fail to comprehend? Virtually everyone here has read the NT.

I don't assume such things. How do you know this to be true? I don't have confidence or evidence of that based upon the misrepresentations of the NT that I have seen on this site.

 

That is a deeply troubling stance that has the potential to cause lasting psychological damage.

Could you provide documented proof that such a belief, held by a large portion of society, has caused psychological damage? This should be easy enough to prove since you have such a large sample set.

[LNC]

The sources you mentioned are valid sources except for Josephus*. But all they prove is that there were some Christians. The sources prove nothing about Jesus. The references to Jesus are hearsay at best. This is not evidence. It is crap as far as proving the existence of Jesus. You will have to just depend on faith.

 

*By the way I knew this about Josephus when I was a fundamentalist preacher. Learned it in bible collage I did.

 

It seems that I may have already answered this one, but in case I haven't here is the response.

 

Josephus has a portion that is believed to be embellished; however, the portions that are believed to be legitimate still give evidence for Jesus' existence. The other sources give evidence of Jesus' existence as well, contrary to your claim. These are historical sources, so to call them "hearsay at best" would cause us to toss out most of our historical documentation on the same grounds. You are sounding a bit post-modern in your thinking. Or, is it just in regard to Jesus that you set this type of historical bar?

[shantonu]

The sources you mentioned are valid sources except for Josephus*. But all they prove is that there were some Christians. The sources prove nothing about Jesus. The references to Jesus are hearsay at best. This is not evidence. It is crap as far as proving the existence of Jesus. You will have to just depend on faith.

 

*By the way I knew this about Josephus when I was a fundamentalist preacher. Learned it in bible collage I did.

 

It seems that I may have already answered this one, but in case I haven't here is the response.

 

Josephus has a portion that is believed to be embellished; however, the portions that are believed to be legitimate still give evidence for Jesus' existence. The other sources give evidence of Jesus' existence as well, contrary to your claim. These are historical sources, so to call them "hearsay at best" would cause us to toss out most of our historical documentation on the same grounds. You are sounding a bit post-modern in your thinking. Or, is it just in regard to Jesus that you set this type of historical bar?

 

Will you go away, you knave? You don't get to talk shit about Josephus--whom I doubt you've read--until you answer simple, direct questions about your own Bible.

[shantonu]

Not so fast, you were the one who made the initial unsupported assertion that God is complex and therefore requires a creator. Please address that and then we can address your question.

 

This is your tactic. You never get to the point--because you don't have one. You are an embarrasment to thinking Christians everywhere. Do you realize what you are doing? You are embarrassing Christians with your lies and cowardice. So much so, that I will have to defend Christianity myself because you are doing such a shitty job.

 

Thanks LNC, as if I didn't have enough to do.

[shantonu]

Ran away again, huh? I'm not surprised.

[shantonu]

OK, so where is the grounding for your morality? You seem pretty confident; surely, you can just give me an explanation. I ground my morality in a transcendent, immutable, and perfect God who is the grounding of objective morality. How about you? Unless you have this objective basis you are merely giving your opinion, yes, just like your preference of Coke or Pepsi.

 

You believe you have an objective basis. Whether that basis actually exists doesn't seem provable.

 

From a psychological point of view, I wonder if that belief alone causes you to operate in a different way from those who don't believe in subjective morality, and what those differences are. This question is inspired by the study a study that suggests a connection between belief in free will and self-control and honesty [1]. Whether free will is an illusion or not, the belief in free will alone had a substantial effect on behavior. I wonder how that plays out here.

 

Phanta

 

1 - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80129125354.htm

 

 

Blah, blah, blah. None of this matters. His "objective basis" is so nonesensical that it can't tell him whether killing todlers is right or wrong. You would think that an "objective basis" for morality would be able to determine whether stabbing a baby to death with a knife is: (a) right or (b ) wrong. But his can't even do that.

[shantonu]

Blah, blah, blah. None of this matters.

 

That was very hurtful.

 

Phant

 

The truth hurts. We are both wasting our time with this jackass who will not answer a straight question. We're better off smacking our heads against a wall.

[shantonu]

Blah, blah, blah. None of this matters.

 

That was very hurtful.

 

Phant

 

I mean, do you realize that you are speaking to someone who cannot tell me whether slicing a baby's head off is right or wrong? Given that fact, what use is all your careful reasoning?

[Ouroboros]

Shantonu,

 

Calm down. Yes, LNC is what he is, but don't take it out on Phanta. If she wants to confront LNC, it's her prerogative, and her choice in what manner she does it. No one need to dictate who talks to who. Okay?

[shantonu]

Shantonu,

 

Calm down. Yes, LNC is what he is, but don't take it out on Phanta. If she wants to confront LNC, it's her prerogative, and her choice in what manner she does it. No one need to dictate who talks to who. Okay?

 

Okay. Sorry. Sorry Phanta.

[Antlerman]

Blah, blah, blah. None of this matters.

 

That was very hurtful.

 

Phant

 

The truth hurts. We are both wasting our time with this jackass who will not answer a straight question. We're better off smacking our heads against a wall.

That's your opinion. Your reply above to her telling you that was hurtful was rather lacking, I'd say.

 

I personally see harping on one point to be addressed page after page begins to loose its effectiveness, as others have considered it and have chosen for reasons of their own to pursue a line of argument differently. I don't believe you will get a response from him, if he's chosen to ignore you for going on 15 pages so far. What purpose does it serve to continue pressing it? You seem to be now criticizing people for not jumping on it with you.

[shantonu]

Blah, blah, blah. None of this matters.

 

That was very hurtful.

 

Phant

 

The truth hurts. We are both wasting our time with this jackass who will not answer a straight question. We're better off smacking our heads against a wall.

That's your opinion. Your reply to her saying that was hurtful was rather lacking.

 

I personally see harping on one point to be addressed page after page begins to loose its effectiveness, as others have considered it and have chosen for reasons of their own to pursue a line of argument differently. I don't believe you will get a response from him, if he's chosen to ignore you for going on 15 pages so far. What purpose does it serve to continue pressing it? You seem to be now criticizing people for not jumping on it with you.

 

I know. You're right. I've apologized.

[shantonu]

Okay. Sorry. Sorry Phanta.

 

I accept your apology.

 

Phanta

 

Thanks. I was way out of line. I appreciate it when people bring me back to good sense.

[Ouroboros]

Shantonu, it happens to the best of us.

[MathGeek]

Yet, that doesn't mean that atheism is not a worldview in and of itself. However, given what you claim, atheism still informs your worldview with elements that are central to what you believe does it not?

 

Regarding the pondering of the origin of the universe, physical sciences can only take you so far, at this time it is back to Planck time, anything prior to that is in the realm of metaphysics at this point.

 

Okay, that is an obvious conclusion. Yet people seem to live lives contented not to be the biggest knowledge heads around. My wife considers herself a Christian and yet she can't crack open a Bible, the CCC, or surf over to a Catholic apologists site to learn the tenets of the faith. There are Christians and atheists alike that don't really care to investigate universal origins at all. Some are just contented to believe or not believe and to leave it at that.

 

This is what I enjoy about interacting with atheists. In one breath they will say that creationists limit scientific inquiry by bringing God into the equation, yet, in another breath will say that we don't have to answer major questions like how the universe came into existence because you don't like the implications of the answers that you may find. That was the same that Fred Hoyle rejected the Big Bang for so long, he didn't like the metaphysical implications to his atheist worldview.

 

I guess I am not the typical atheist. I guess my atheism is at least open to the possibility that a force beyond the realm of the senses. It seems to me that Christianity doesn't consume the daily life of many people at all. Furthermore, even if a force beyond the realms of the sense is responsible for creating the universe, it is doesn't logically follow for me that it is the Christian God. There are other deities to compete for that title. If there is enough evidence to convince me of a metaphysical presence, then it is at most the conclusion of the philosopher's God. Either way, the conclusion of the philosopher's god seems ultimately pointless. If the philosopher's God (or even the Christian God) took the effort to create us and still remains at a long distance away from us, then what is the point in worshipping a being that may or may not be there at all?

 

I have reached the conclusion of despair that is supposedly logical with my "worldview". Maybe I should go on antidepressants.

[chefranden]

Not so.

 

T'is so.

[Kuroikaze]

Not so fast, you were the one who made the initial unsupported assertion that God is complex and therefore requires a creator. Please address that and then we can address your question.

 

Hmmm....but didn't YOU make the unsupported assertion that the universe is complex and therefore requires a creator? How come you get to make unsupported assertions and we don't?

[Astreja]

Not so fast, you {Astreja} were the one who made the initial unsupported assertion that God is complex and therefore requires a creator. Please address that and then we can address your question.

Hmmm....but didn't YOU make the unsupported assertion that the universe is complex and therefore requires a creator? How come you get to make unsupported assertions and we don't?

Oh, it gets better, Kuroikaze!

 

I went through all of My posts in this thread... Twice! ...and failed to turn up any record of Me utilizing any version of the Dawkins "Ultimate 747" argument. It's possible I missed it, but I don't think so.

 

In other words... It appears that LNC has falsely accused Me. And this is something up with which I will not put. If My findings are accurate, at a bare minimum I want $20,000 USD in weregild and an apology. (I'll accept a Talking Snake™ in lieu of the weregild, but the apology is a must.)

 

And I'm really wondering about the 'we' in 'and then we can address your question'.

[Kuroikaze]

Yet, that doesn't mean that atheism is not a worldview

This is what I enjoy about interacting with atheists. In one breath they will say that creationists limit scientific inquiry by bringing God into the equation, yet, in another breath will say that we don't have to answer major questions like how the universe came into existence because you don't like the implications of the answers that you may find. That was the same that Fred Hoyle rejected the Big Bang for so long, he didn't like the metaphysical implications to his atheist worldview.

 

First I think you are misinterpreting what we mean when we say this. Inserting god into the equation limits inquiry because it is not an answer that has any explanatory power. Even if there is a god, the answer "god did it" does not help a scientist do his job. This isn't a position of Atheists, this is a position of anyone who understands the scientific method irregardless of their religious views.

 

We are not limiting scientific inquiry, I am all for finding out the answers to as many questions as we can. However, we must also be wiling to admit when we don't know. We are just disagreeing with the tendency to insert god into whatever happens to be unknown at the moment. Maybe god IS there, but he doesn't have to be. The big bang has no metaphysical implications at all. How you jump from, "the universe, as we currently perceive and understand it, had a beginning" to "Jesus is lord," or even the more general, "There is a god," is completely beyond me, its a complete non-sequiter.

[Justin]

Yet, that doesn't mean that atheism is not a worldview

This is what I enjoy about interacting with atheists. In one breath they will say that creationists limit scientific inquiry by bringing God into the equation, yet, in another breath will say that we don't have to answer major questions like how the universe came into existence because you don't like the implications of the answers that you may find. That was the same that Fred Hoyle rejected the Big Bang for so long, he didn't like the metaphysical implications to his atheist worldview.

 

I never heard an atheist who has ever said what you have in bold up there. What is said is that nobody knows for certain how it came into existence, as i have told you before. The limiting of scientific inquiry is the bringing up of the magical and supernatural, what the creationists do. You and creationists advocate the formation of the universe as a god merely thinking it into existence, snapping his fingers or blinking. It is no different than if someone said that the literal speaking of the words "hocus pocus", or "abracadabra", or "peanut butter and jelly sandwiches" or the casting of a magical potion brought the universe into existence. That is why creation hoop-la isn't taken seriously. If evidence of the supernatural and magical was proven and documented by science, then and only then would the possibility of a magical god be taken seriously. Why you cannot see this is beyond me.

 

I want to ask you something LNC. Suppose god did create the Universe, why are you so sure, as you are, that the christian god is the one responsible for its creation? What if it is the work of Allah? Zeus, some pagan god or any random Hindu god? Or perhaps it's the work of a god who has no religion as yet dedicated to him? Why the christian god, aka, your god?