Calling All Atheists and Interested Parties

The BBQ Pit
381

There was no science at all. Let’s review: the claim was “god is the one that directly creates gravity”. That’s not a scientific claim. How can this god be measured? There are no god particles. There is no god meter. There’s no scientific test the result of which points to god.

Let me illustrate what I’m saying. Suppose a god were to make the sun turn blue. All that science sees is the sun turning blue. It does not see a god turning the sun blue. There is a fundamental difference in principle, meaning, and whole construct between “the sun turning blue” and “god making the sun turn blue”. Science can assure us by measuring the wavelength of its light that the sun did indeed turn from yellow to blue. But if a (metaphysical) god did it, science is blind to that fact.

I’m glad we found this common ground. Obviously, if science did determine truth, then once a scientific finding has been made, it would not be necessary to investigate any further. The truth will have been found.

A good example is the analytical claim that 1 + 1 = 2. Believe it or not, people have argued with me that science can prove that claim. “I can put one rock with another one rock and count them!” the person says. But as you and I both know, all his experiment proved is that in that particular instance when he combined one rock with another, he counted two. What his experiment did not prove — and science never can prove — is that every time he conducts the experiment he will always count two. He cannot not count two. That is the nature of analytical proof. It establishes truth.

Okay, but those are different. The number 2 is not a physical thing, but we can represent the number 2 as a numeral “2” and write it with a pencil. That doesn’t mean that the number 2 and the numeral 2 are the same. One is just a representation of the other.

No, I’m sorry, we can’t. Science cannot make any comment about God’s existence one way or the other.

Good example. Let’s codify it to make it even simpler for analysis:

  1. G -> ECU (premise)
  2. ~ECU (scientific finding)
    :: ~G v ~(ECU)

Since ~(ECU) is true (by 2), then ~G must be true by modus tollens. Therefore, ~(ECU) cannot be true (by exclusive or). But ~(ECU) must be true (by 2). We’ve drawn a contradiction.

The flaw is an equivocation. The claim that “god has created X” is not scientifically testable; therefore, (2) cannot be a finding of truth with respect to (1). But we are treating (1) as though it were a scientific claim, or else we are treating (2) as though it were an analytical claim.

Nope, sorry. Evidence provided by science may be interpreted arbitrarily either way with equal validity. Consider this comment from a neurosurgeon and neurological researcher regarding his experiments with the limbic system and religious experience:

“Why is the revealed truth of such transcendent experiences [with religion] in any way ‘inferior’ to the more mundane truths that we scientists dabble in? Indeed, if you are tempted to jump to this conclusion, just bear in mind that one could use exactly the same evidence – the involvement of the temporal lobes in religion – to argue for, rather than against, the existence of God.” — VS Ramachandran, MD, PhD, Phantoms in the Brain, pp 184-185

382

Many atheists tell me that my brain is delusional, or stupid, or dense, or any number of things other than affected by God. Just because my limbic system gets all happy doesn’t tell you a thing about God. You can’t determine scientifically whether my brain is creating an illusion of God, or whether God is making Himself manifest to my brain.

383

I apologize. I should have given your post a more careful reading.

Don’t know. :slight_smile:

384

I should have checked; it turns out my booty may not be capacious enough for the Truth’s taste. Ah well.

385

Incarnated and Gnostic.

Not in the least (to the original Question).

386

One more thing. I’ve seen people assert that Christianity and Judaism get a certain about of deference that other religions don’t.

But this is not true. People who claim to be wiccans, or buddhists, or followers of Cybelle, or hindus, or shintoists certainly aren’t immediately mocked and derided except by those who would also mock and deride christians and jews.

We’ve got tons of pagans on these boards, and they get the same amount of respect mainstream religous believers do. We have one poster who claimed to worship the goddess Cybelle. People might have been a bit surprised, even amused when she claimed this, but they didn’t point and laugh and tell her she was an idiot because anyone except an idiot could see that Cybelle was imaginary.

I don’t point and laugh at neopagans, I don’t point and laugh at hindus, I don’t point and laugh at Japanese ancestor worshippers. And I don’t point and laugh at Christians or Jews either. I don’t give Christians and Jews any more of a pass than I do other religious believers, NOR ANY LESS.

Yes, we’d mock a neopagan who said she could cast a spell on us, just like we’d mock a Christian who said she’d pray for God to smite us. Scientologists aren’t derided primarily because they believe in Xenu (in fact, only the inner circle Scientologists are supposed to know about Xenu), Scientology’s mythology isn’t any more nonsensical than pagan or christian mythology, but because Scientology is an organized crime ring masquerading as a religion. Finding out someone is a Christian merits the same shrug I’d give when I find someone is a pagan. It’s not a shocking admission of willfull ignorance and hostility to reason. Sure, some Christians are big idiots who are hostile to reason. But most of them aren’t, in fact they are pretty typical people, and the non-Christians I know don’t seem to be any more likely to think critically or use their brains than the Christians. In most cases it seems the opposite, the non-Christians are slightly more likely to make illogical mistakes.

387

I have no idea. If I did, I might have been able to answer Diogenes’ question about whether or not Neanderthals have souls.

Of course I accept evolutionary theory…I stated earlier in this thread that we (humans) are clearly evolved mammals. As to your second question, I believe that these intangibles are NOT necessarily something that evolved, as our physical bodies did, and that each person is infused with a soul that gives us these qualities. Therefore, it’s not necessary for these intangibles to be inherited or transferred from one generation to another.

That’s kind of a weird yet interesting question. As I said above, I have no idea when a certain species of primate “became” human, but just like any other species, we evolved from something else. I have no idea when God started giving us souls, but assuming we did not have them when we were amoebae, then I guess there may very well be a “first” human (though not exactly in the mold of Genesis).

388

Several questions on this:

Can you back up your claim that “Scientology is an organized crime ring”?

Does this mean that all Scientologists are in on it?
Or does is mean most are?
Or does it mean that the inner circle is and the everyday Scientologists are just dupes?

Could you accept that the inner circle of some other religions were started in much the same way with flimflam men creating a religion for their own benefit?

I believe the Historic RCC has some damning history. I believe several splinter groups were created not to purify the teachings of Christ, but to pull power to a new group.

Mormons are well respected on this board, many live outstandingly good lives, true examples of Christ’s teachings. Their founder by most standards was a blatant con artist who got the ball rolling on something that apparently outgrew him.

Is the difference between an established religion and a cult nothing more than time and success? How long ago was it that the Mormons were considered a hated cult and harassed at most every turn?

I know many Protestant groups did form strictly from religious devoutness. While I can not join them, I respect groups like the Quakers far more than groups that were established by various European Monarchs.

Jim

389

Well how can they be proven wrong? You’ve asserted the existence of something that is “intangible” - i.e. can’t be sensed. That’s a nice trick. You can’t sense it, but I know it’s there, therefore my assertion is safe from the scruitny of of science and reason.

But actually, when you talk about “intangibles” you really appear to mean qualities that aren’t intangible at all (you apparently sense them) but which you just don’t believe you have to describe or define in any meaningful way. That would be a harmless bit of intellectual laziness, I suppose, but you extend this chain of illogic, to posit the existence of a “soul,” which is by your definition that which animals don’t have.

The construct of a soul in your scheme accomplishes nothing more or less than devaluing the lives of other species based on no evidence, just a word, a label you pulled out of the ether. That ploy would never be tolerated if it weren’t promulgated by religions and given a free pass as a sacrosanct “religious belief.”

Are there things that science cannot speak to? Of course. Science only answers questions of fact. Questions of law, questions of value, questions of ethics, aesthetics, meaning and on and on, are simply not the domain of science. So once we have an idea what the differences between animals and humans really are, the question of what value we put on those differences is beyond the ability of science to answer.

But you’re discussing an earlier question, a question of fact: what are the differences between humans and animals. And because it’s a question of fact, it’s falls under the domain of science. You simply can’t put the facile label “intangible” on the subject and then say anything you want is so. Well you can, but there’s no reason to take you seriously then.

390

Sorry I missed this earlier:

Actually, the initial claim was that there is none. Ask that person to prove it since the burden is on him. However, I will agree to provide what evidence I have so long as you provide assurances that you will not fold your arms, close your eyes, block your ears and say that the evidence I provide is not evidence. I won’t mind your saying that it’s not acceptable evidence as far as you’re concerned. But why should I waste time typing if you’re just going to declare, as though you have objective authority, that what I consider evidence is not evidence at all?

391

If you want to play chicken and egg, the initial claim was that there is a ‘god’. I’ve mentioned that I became an atheist when I was 7. I started asking someone to prove that ‘god’ exists 22 years ago and I have yet to find anyone who goes beyond ‘god exists and if he wanted you to believe in him you would.’

If your evidence is independently verifiable and exists outside your own mind, what’s the problem with it facing scrutiny?

392

Re: Scientology.

Sure, the inner circle are the crime lords, the rank and file are dupes. And sure, plenty of other religions have started the same way. But in most of them the con-men believe their own con because the easiest way to convince the marks is to first convince yourself.

It’s not so much that L Ron Hubbard was a con man when he created Scientology. It’s that Scientology continues today to operate as a crime ring. There are literally hundreds of religions with religious/supernatural claims that are way wackier than Scientology’s. And no one cares.

393

I do not want to play chicken and egg. That is expressly what I intend to avoid. That’s why I laid out the conditions for you so clearly: let’s discuss this like intellectual peers, or let’s go our separate ways.

The initial claim that I saw is that arguments for Christianity contain no evidence. I then responded in several posts, beginning here, explaining that scientific evidence (1) is not the only kind of evidence that there is for things, and (2) is not even an appropriate kind of evidence to demand for religion. Now, it may be the case that you joined the discussion late or failed to read the thread before posting. But you clearly are wrong so far.

That’s a pretty small bubble you’ve lived in. There is arguably more literature on Christian apologetics than on any other religious topic. If you’ve encountered nothing more than what you say you’ve encountered, then your research has been practically zero.

Loaded question fallacy. I have no problem with it facing scrutiny, and haven’t said that I have a problem with it facing scrutiny. I have a problem with it facing irrationality, irrelevant old grudges, and word twisting of the kind you’ve done here. Unless your response to this post turns things around 180 degrees between us, then I have no desire to continue discussing this with you. If you simply want us to slap each other with words, then let’s go on and do that. But let’s not pretend that it’s any sort of discussion about my faith or your lack of it. It’ll just be two assholes hijacking a thread for a private war. And frankly, on second thought, I don’t care to do that either.

394

I’m an Anglican. That means that I, along with my church, rejected the claims of the Pope to be the “guardian of my conscience” and tell me what I should or should not believe.

In my considered opinion, the experiences of myself and a wide variety of people whose ability to scrutinize and analyze their own experiences, combined with historical data of varying degrees of reliability (and we can discuss at length Biblical criticism and what it does and does not prove), suggest strongly to me that the entity which I feel myself to have encountered (and bearing in mind that I could have deluded myself) is in fact one of significant power and knowledge beyond my own, which professes to love me and want the best for me, in short God as described by those who have in fact experienced such encounters. I allow for the fact that self-delusion and will to believe are quite possible explanations, but have reason to believe that not to be the case in this instance.

I do not accept that Pope Benedict XVI has any authority to tell me what and what not to believe. I do not accept that Pope Cat VI has any authority to tell me what and what not to believe. I accept the right of both, along with several billion other people, to believe or not believe what they themselves choose. But I do not grant authority to either to control my conscience.

I do stand firmly against either the Religious Right, Catholic hierarchs carrying out the expectations of what they hold to be the One True Church, angry atheists (or perfectly calm atheists either, for that matter), or anyone else, claiming any authority to enforce by law or coercion the power to infringe upon my or anyone else’s right to establish our own beliefs and to freely exercise them as individuals and corporately as we so choose.

And, to address the OP, I do not believe that the SDMB management and volunteer staff is prejudiced in any way whatsoever except to have the policy of enabling the free exchange of ideas handled in a generally civil if occasionally impassioned manner. Violating customs of civility by making personal attacks and insults is confined to this present forum, the BBQ Pit, and rightly so IMO.

What seems to be at issue is whether Tom~ unjustly interfered with badchad’s efforts to attack and insult me whenever I ventured to express an opinion, because my personal distaste for the misrepresentations and outright lies about the beliefs of myself and my liberal Christian compeers presented by fundamentalist Christians was taken by him as an insult against his fundamentalist parents, even though he himself is an atheist who rejects his own fundy upbringing and my liberal beliefs equally, and whether Tom~ further was unjustified in restricting argumentation in Dangermom’s thread to issues of Mormon theology, as opposed to the questionable origins of Mormon belief.

Net bottom line: The Old Testament of the Bible was written by chroniclers repeating legends of the Israelite people and the history of its monarchy, told in a manner slanted to support their particular religious beliefs. The New Testament was likewise accounts, again written in a slanted manner, regarding the life and teachings of Jesus and the correspondence and acts of his chief followers. The errors of fact and interpretation which inevitably entered into those writings as a result of the authors’ bias conduce against but do not disprove the existence, nature, and intent of the God of whom they wrote. That is a separate question. Disbelieving that George Washington cut down a cherry tree or threw a Spanish 8-reales coin across the Delaware River does not necessarily disprove his actions as commanding general of the Continental Army or as first President of the U.S. under the Constitution. The reasonable inference that Joseph Smith Jr. was either a charlatan or the human equivalent of a Nutty Buddy confection does not in and of itself disprove Mormon theology (which I personally think to be completely insane); it is evidence against such a theology but not quite germane to a discussion of what it is that Mormons actually believe. In view of the fact that there was a thread already active on debunking Mormon-belief archaeology and the provenance of Mormon sacred writings (other than the Bible), restricting debate in Dangermom’s thread to the topic she started it to discuss was simply, in my view, an attempt to draw a line between duplication of topic. Evidence against Nephite submarines and cities, mysterious golden plates that vanish into heaven, and such go here, in Thread A; evidence against the “doctrine of eternal progression” and preexistent “spirit lives and combat” and God fathering Jesus by sexual intercourse with someone other than Mary goes here, in Thread B. As a parallel, it may be quite acceptable to question the claimed credentials of PRR (which I think personally he has acquitted himself about, though there are elements of tone and attitude in his original assertions that I found disreputable); it is not appropriate to hijack his “Ask the Academic” thread to continue such attacks. Nor, when I have disavowed taking the Bible literally as a significant part of my own faith, were the ongoing assaults with an “all or nothing” excluded-middle fallacy position regarding the Bible appropriate in discussions of what Liberal Christians believe on a given subject area.

YMMV. But that’s where I’m coming from.

395

What this looks like to me is you attempting to twist the situation to hide the fact that you can’t fulfill the request you said you could. You claimed you could provide evidence, I asked for it, and you dodged. It’s all been a dodge since then, first with claiming that you won’t produce evidence because I wouldn’t take it seriously, and now blaming me for some kind of a grudge or twisting words around.

My question hasn’t changed since day one. You claim that there is a god, and you claim that you have evidence of the existence of said god.

Where is this evidence?

396

You call me intellectually lazy and tell me there is no reason to take me seriously. That’s fine, I guess, but you have offered no alternative explanations, yourself. Why don’t you tell me how YOU think these intangibles can be defined, and where do we get our humanity? Are we different from animals, and if so, why? What makes us different? What causes the difference? I sure as heck have never seen it explained adequately by science. As far as God is concerned, my belief & faith are not a RESULT of my not being able to find an alternate answer to these questions. I have said before that I believe in god because I just do, and I don’t know exactly where that belief comes from, and I don’t know a way to turn it off. All logic, as people on this board love to point out, says that there is no reason for a god, and no evidence for a god. Nevertheless, as sure as the athiests are that there is no god, I am equally convinced that there is. Discussions of this nature are fruitless and pointless, because each side necessarily has to argue from a different set of premises, and neither will ever be likely to convert the other. It doesn’t matter to me, because I have never been out to convert anyone, or convince anyone that my POV is the “correct” one.

Regarding the “value” I place on the differences between humans and animals…I don’t necessarily place any particular value on it. God may, but I don’t. I don’t know his purpose in giving us what other animals don’t have, and so I can’t say we are better for it, I just know we are different.

Someone mentioned earlier about certain other animals being self-aware. I perhaps do not have the right term for what I really mean. I am not just talking about basic self-awareness as in “I am separate from the other chimps,” but more of a deep self-awareness of who I am and how I fit into the world, my community, my family, my social circle, etc. I think the depth in which humans can understand their inner selves and how we relate to the world is unique. I don’t mean to be so vague that I am avoiding “describing or defining it in any meaningful way.” And I certainly don’t mean to be intellectually lazy. I have thought a lot about these issues, but find them hard to articulate in concrete terms (hence the term “intangibles.”)

397

The scientific claim was that “gravity is related to the mass of an object”. The theological claim is that god is the one that directly creates gravity.

That’s true. However, if the Sun turned blue through some unknown means - if it contradicted what we’ve learned through science - then we would be forced to try and develop a new understanding. And if we are unable to through science, that lends credence to our faith-based view that the god is repsonsible; after all, science cannot explain it (yet).

That’s true, but I don’t think the number 2 and the numeral 2 are related in the same way that a god and that god’s interactions on the physical plane are. A god’s interactions are a result of that god’s nature; we could use any symbol to represent the number 2, but a god’s interactions are part of it.

It can provide evidence for and against it.

I don’t follow that last part. What about there being no god means that there can be no ECU?

The scientific claim in 1 is that the universe is EC. That’s scientifically testable. If 1 is not so, then god cannot have created an ECU (assuming our evidence is correct). That’s the logic part.

I don’t see how this contradicts my assertation. If all evidence can be interpreted either way, then my interpretation of some scientific evidence as evidence for or against a god is just as valid as your interpretation that it cannot.

398

And so the disingenuousness surfaces. You are perfectly willing to interpret all day long, up one side and down the other. You speak of how things look to you. If I, however, offer (as I have repeatedly) that I interpret evidence differently from you (and other argumentative atheists), you (collectively) claim that I have offered no evidence at all. You want to be able to say that things look a certain way to you, but you are unwilling to concede that the exact same things might legitimately look a different way to someone else, especially a person of faith. I would be ashamed to take such a position, but since you have no shame about it, there is nothing to be done.

The questions you ask, and the accusations you hurl, are so loaded that they have to be torn to pieces to answer them. In this one sentence you’ve packed all this: (1) a personal interpretation; (2) an accusation of twisting the situation (how a situation might possibly be twisted is a separate metaphysical question); (3) an accusation of hiding; (4) a claim that I’m unable to fulfil your request. Why didn’t you just stick out your tongue and spit at me instead? There is nothing of substance in any of this crap. It’s just angry key-pecking.

It’s awfully hard to hide anything about a discussion on a public message board. I cannot possibly hide anything I’ve said. Your accusation that I intended to betrays the level of contempt with which you hold me to begin with. It is highly doubtful that you seek any information (or frankly, that you ever have.) After all, you have chosen not to turn the conversation around as I requested, and insteaded opted for the personal slapping contest.

I said that I could provide you the evidence that satisfies me, but I conditioned it on your returning to the discussion on the basis of a discussion among intellectual peers. Despite whatever delusion you might be under, I will not discuss anything of substance with you so long as you continue to make it abundantly clear that this is nothing more than fishing for a fight.

Why would I dodge you? Did you image that I perceive you to be the Great Oz or something? Do you fancy that I’m afraid of you somehow?

Since when? Despite that you may think the universe revolves around you, I have not even engaged you on the matter until this day. And that was just to inform you that you had your facts mixed up. You said that I made a claim, and I pointed out that the original claim (the opposite of mine) was made by someone else. And I reminded you about the principle of Burden of Proof. You know, being on the initial claimant and all.

You won’t even take the discussion seriously. Why should it be presumed that you would take the evidence seriously?

A longstanding grudge, in fact. But blame yourself. You’re the one who said you’ve been searching for twenty-something years and no one will give you what you want.

Which is exactly what you did. You suggested, out of the blue, that I had a problem with my evidence facing scrutiny — which is absurd since I’ve opened whole threads to examine that evidence. Did you participate in any of them? (And no, I won’t provide you links. You can find them yourself, and it shouldn’t take you twenty years.)

This IS day one. Is it possible that you have me confused with someone else?

Yes, I do.

You chose to take this discussion to the gutter. I will give you one last opportunity to wipe the slate and begin anew with a respectful approach. Right now, you’re coming across like the serial killer standing at my door saying that I claim to have a sister, and demanding to know where she is. Unless you’re willing to respect me, I would no sooner give you any evidence than I would give a pig a pearl.

Hopefully, Revenant will return so that two rational people can have a discussion. Perhaps you could follow it, and you might find your evidence there. Frankly, I don’t care whether you do or not.

(On preview… Oh happy day!) :slight_smile:

399

Oh, okay. Well science can examine the first one, but not the second.

No, sorry. Science cannot even posit a god, not unless by “god” it means something physical; i.e., something made of atoms. A god of the gaps is a broader philosophical question. Science is a very narrow subset of philosophy, and deals only with questions about the physical universe.

To be clear, I’m not dismissing a god’s interaction with the universe. I’m dismissing only the ability of science to detect it (the god, not the effects).

Whatever evidence science provides is theologically neutral. We can interpret that evidence, using tools other than science — like logic, for example — either for or against.

Because the assertion is: either there is no god or else there is no ECU. Both cannot be true.

But that’s a different claim. Let’s say that “A” is a claim, and that “B” is a claim. Neither of those is the same as “A -> B”. That is a whole 'nother claim. You can’t take “G -> ECU” and break it apart in one step. The entire implication is a claim.

Well, if ECU is correct, then nothing can have created an ECU. That’s not a slap against anything specific, least of all a god.

It’s the entire argument that’s a contradiction, for the reasons I outlined. That doesn’t mean that a noncontradictory argument cannot be formulated. It can. But it won’t mix two epistemologies together.

Oh, sure. Absolutely. You are not required to accept any principles of logic. It’s just something I need to know up front because reason is my primary tool in analyzing these things. But I can adapt to some other rule-set. You’ll have to tell me the rules, though.

400

How will you reconcile your beliefs to a new reality if we ever do achieve communications with an Alien Civilization, if a computer array becomes self-aware or if we find proof that some Cetaceans are fully self-aware?

Will this simply be a divine spark or Soul or whatever term you like?

Even in the case of a machine?

I appreciate your argument, but it does seem to come down to the one thing that in the end all religious people always have to fall back. Your belief is based on a matter of faith. It is difficult for those without faith to understand the POV of someone with faith. There is a similarity to a sighted person describing a rainbow to a person that has always been blind. *Of course, I am not sure which person is the blind one in this analogy. *

Jim