The Problem with Epistemology

123 posts / 0 new
Last post
calhais's picture
While I do not accept your

While I do not accept your definition of an apologist or apologetic let me ask you.

I think I'm going to start calling arakish's silly re-definitions of the words `asbolutist' and `apologist' `arakish-absolutist' and `arakish-apologist' since arakish consistently uses his re-definitions to slight people he disagrees with.

Directly answering questions that assume a falsehood is as dumb as asking them. Always consider `whether' before `why.'

arakish's picture
Searching: "It's mainly

Searching: "It's mainly because the majority of my posts are from my phone. So it makes it hard to separate citations. Hopefully this way (creating a new line) makes it easier."

Acceptable. Sorry. But even on my phone and/or PADD I can insert a crlf to separate into a new paragraph.

And, yes, it is more difficult than on a keyboard. Sorry.

rmfr

uploaded from my PADD during break

LogicFTW's picture
Padd?

Padd?

Google search:

"PADD" is an acronym for Personal Access Display Device

I consider myself a huge computer nerd (hell I make a nice living off being a computer nerd,) and have not heard that term before.

arakish's picture
Comes from Star Trek: The

Comes from Star Trek: The Next Generation. When they first came out, that is what I called them and have done so ever since. The little PS thing is an automated script. When using my PADD, I only make short posts since it is so damned difficult without an actual keyboard.

rmfr

uploaded from my PADD during break

Searching for truth's picture
@LogicFTW

@LogicFTW

Ok, let’s take a step back here as it seems a few things got mixed up so let’s kind of start over.

First let’s agree to limit this conversation to ISLAM ONLY and not all religions, it will make things easier instead of saying all religions.

“there is a lot of religion that goes against science. To accept the quran in whole, or the bible or, other various religious text, you must abandon and ignore science.” Please show me how Islam “goes against science” and how as a Muslim I “must abandon and ignore science”

“To say there is a supreme being that is all powerful and all knowing, again you must completely write over basic foundations of science: biology, chemistry, physics, gravity, etc.” Since science can NOT disprove this, for now, let’s ignore or keep this on hold for a bit. I am trying to simplify this conversation as much as possible before it gets any “deeper” later on.

“There are plenty of religious people in the world that will get very upset if you tell them the world is ~4.5 billion years old.” For Muslims, 4.5 billion years old or 4 million years old, it is irrelevant to a certain extent to our belief.

“A simple example is: The smartphone, the orignal iphone launched a mere 11 years ago” While this is true statement, I think it’s also irrelevant, as least to Islam. Islam is not meant to change over time or get revised or improved. The great thing about Islam is it is NOT a 1 size fits all religion, it in itself is adaptable which is why is has a “common sense” element to it that adapts based off the person’s individual situation in some cases. Although, while it could adapt to a situation the person must make sure that it does not deviate from the main message, a person can’t rob someone and say they did it in the name of Islam since stealing is against the religion. Why would a god that created humans, that knows they are all different in some way or form send a book with a 1 size fits all? That would not be a fair and just god. Quick example, in general a woman is not supposed to kiss or physically interact with a strange man unless he’s her husband of close family member but, let’s say this woman is CPR certified. She’s at a pool or beach with her family and she sees a man drowning, what should she do? If you choose to ignore the common sense element and main message of Islam (which is peace, love and harmony) then one might say “oh well, he’s screwed” but, NO in fact it’s the exact opposite. At that point it actually becomes an obligation on her to save him and even give him CPR if needed to save his life. Or course after she saves his life and even gave him CPR, once he is fine that does NOT mean all of sudden she can freely interact with him, he’s still “off limits” to her but, under those circumstances there was an exception for a short period of time. So based off that small example, you can see how Islam does not need to be changed or improved like an iPhone does.

“It took 1000's of years to go from sheet parchment to the printing press the pace of new technology is astounding, and what this tech can do for us is even more amazing, and the pace of innovation is only accelerating ever faster.” Well if it took religion “1000’s of years to from parchment to printing press” then it could be said that it took about 4.5 billion years for the first iphone to be made. You are comparing apples and oranges in 2 completely different eras of human history. Again, it’s also irrelevant.

“Are you saying science and religion are different and should not be compared? I am fine with that.” Yes and no. Yes, if the difference between the 2 is established ahead of time both parties understand and agree to that. I also say No because they do not adhere to the same standards. Its like comparing a running back to a wide receiver, same sport but, 2 completely different positions, skills sets and responsibilities (as long as you don’t include scoring TDs).

“ So comparison naturally follows.” Yeah but from the threads I have read no conclusion ever comes to fruition. Just a bunch of people yelling at each other. And yes, even I am unfortunately guilty of this as well.

“Plus I love to debate, especially with theist.” Same with Atheist but, first we need to establish what constitutes as evidence that both agree to otherwise, we are wasting each other’s time. If that is something you are interested in, I will gladly participate.

LogicFTW's picture
@Searching for truth

@Searching for truth

First let’s agree to limit this conversation to ISLAM ONLY and not all religions, it will make things easier instead of saying all religions.

Okay. As long as you do not feel like I am not targeting your religion in particular.

Please show me how Islam “goes against science” and how as a Muslim I “must abandon and ignore science”

Sura Al-Fatiha
“The Opening”
English translation of Surah Al-Fatiha

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful:

All Praise is due to Allah, Lord of the Universe

The Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

Owner of the Day of Judgement.

You alone do we worship, and You alone we turn to for help

Guide us to the straight path;

The path of those on whom You have bestowed your grace, not (the way) of those who have earned Your anger, nor of those who went astray.

.
.

Used by many as the start of daily prayers. Parts that stick out to me that goes against science:
- Lord of the Universe
- Owner of the Day of Judgement.
- You alone do we worship, and You alone we turn to for help

Now the above is broad, imprecise language, very open to interpretation but I think it is fair to say that the Quran implies here that "Allah" has powers that allows him to be lord of the universe, owner of the day of judgement, that he is the only one, and the only one that can "help." How does he do that? Well most would say "he is god" he is all powerful, he can do anything. But how exactly? Science tells us of gravity, of chemistry, things governed by rules, rules found in science. These rules do not give room for some all powerful being that can suddenly up end these rules of science, no matter how much you try to wish a billion dollars in cash to pop into being, it just won't happen. Worse still we have not seen any sign of something that broke all the rules of the various sciences take place now or in the past.

And this is just the first lines of the first chapter.

for now, let’s ignore or keep this on hold for a bit.

Sure. I am fine with debating with whatever you feel like debating about right now.

For Muslims, 4.5 billion years old or 4 million years old, it is irrelevant to a certain extent to our belief.

That is cool that at least some islamic people do not challenge that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old. Follow up question though: Do you think the universe is ~13.8 billion years old? If so what was your god doing with all that time? Remember Islam as a religion did not come along until very, VERY! recently, the other 99.999% of the time there was no humans around to worship the guy. To put that in a scale we can hope to understand, imagine 1 year of your own life. (31,557,600 seconds) That means every second in this scale is equal to 437.3 years. Muhammad was born in Mecca around the year 570, And was about 40 years old when he got the divine revelations. 2018 - 610 = 1408 years. 1408 years = 3.22 seconds in this year timescale. So this god/Allah created the universe on the first second of the year, then sat around and did basically nothing. Then generously rounding up, at 11:59.56 on new years eve, during the last 4 second countdown to a new year suddenly got very involved with humans for a split second, then went totally incognito for the remaining 3 seconds. Why would a god do this why would a god sit around and do nothing for a year then at the very last seconds (to us) do a frenzy of activity and demand we worship him and only him with no evidence? Why did he pick the middle east to get involved? Why did he ignore the other 95+ percent of the landmass on earth along with all the people living there?

I think it’s also irrelevant, as least to Islam.

Dang I spent some time writing up all that about the Iphone, oh well.

So based off that small example, you can see how Islam does not need to be changed or improved like an iPhone does.

Contrary to popular belief the Quran has been changed from its supposed original and most certainly, interpretation of the writing has changed as culture has changed. https://carm.org/have-there-been-changes-in-the-quran As all ancient text religious or not will have how it is interpreted changed as time goes by or even simply reader to reader.

then it could be said that it took about 4.5 billion years for the first iphone to be made.

Correct, but I would say 13.8 billion years since the big bang. However I was talking about the first Iphone to iphone X. And comparing that to sheet of parchment paper to the printing press. Different ages to be sure, and really you reinforce my point, and/or agree with me on this, in this age, arguably the age of science, innovation has sped up greatly compared to ages past, ages where Islam was a major part of.

Yes, if the difference between the 2 is established ahead of time both parties understand and agree to that.

That is going to take some work, but if you want to do that I will be happy to let you start and I will tell you if I agree.

“ So comparison naturally follows.” Yeah but from the threads I have read no conclusion ever comes to fruition. Just a bunch of people yelling at each other. And yes, even I am unfortunately guilty of this as well.

This is true, I debated/talked about this stuff long enough to fully realize we are going to talk past each other a lot, and I hold out no hope of convincing anyone of one side or the other. We have two fundamentally different viewpoints on major core aspects of life. But that is okay I still like to debate/talk about it.

first we need to establish what constitutes as evidence that both agree to.

I agree, getting us to agree what constitutes as evidence is a great starting point, but it is a very philosophical question that may never have an answer we can both agree on because at the very core of the way we view the world are different. Perhaps we can start with something we both likely agree on: I want to live a healthy, happy, satisfying life, what can help me do that? What evidence definition that allows for a healthy happy satisfying life?

Searching for truth's picture
@ LogicFTW,

@ LogicFTW,

Ok, well, WOW that’s a lot to reply to. Although, I do think many of your questions might be answered had we established an agreed upon criteria prior but, out of respect for the time and effort you put in to type (and copy some) all that up I will reply to as much as I can.

“Okay. As long as you do not feel like I am not targeting your religion in particular”
Nope, as long as you keep it clean and talk about its concepts and ideas and neither of us resort to personal attacks we should be fine.

“Used by many as the start of daily prayers.”
Actually, used by all Muslims not many. Well, at least the ones that pray.

“Parts that stick out to me that goes against science:
- Lord of the Universe
- Owner of the Day of Judgement.
- You alone do we worship, and You alone we turn to for help”
Has science been able to prove otherwise? Just trying to understand how it goes against science. While I know science has not proven this, I do not believe it has disproven this either. Please correct me if I am wrong

“Now the above is broad, imprecise language,” Actually, on the contrary its specific and straight forward. I will comment on this further later on but, that’s why Islamic scholars say that no one that has not mastered the Arabic language as well as a bunch of other forms and ways of Arabic and Quran should not try to interpret the Quran. There are a plethora of books already written for people that truly want to understand that Quran by scholars that have spent their lives understanding the religion and its traditions however, trying to break it down and interpret it as a laymen is what makes people misunderstand and ultimately send the wrong message.

“These rules do not give room for some all powerful being that can suddenly up end these rules of science,”

“no matter how much you try to wish a billion dollars in cash to pop into being, it just won't happen” Yes, and no sane person on earth (Muslim or atheist) would believe they can and there is nothing in the Quran that says a Muslim can or should believe something like this is even possible.

“Do you think the universe is ~13.8 billion years old?” As I said before it’s irrelevant to our belief. If scientists were able to prove then I would most likely believe it, if later on it was proved wrong it would not matter to me since at the end of the day it’s irrelevant to my personal and spiritual life. As Muslims, we are supposed to focus on that which has an effect on us and our faith that is the reason we are told not to worry ourselves with things that do no concern us(of course within context). If you need me to clarify further and provide examples please let me know.
“If so what was your god doing with all that time?” Again, it is irrelevant to our faith as it is. When you are at work, let’s assume you are the janitor, does it matter to you what the CEO of the company was doing prior to you getting hired? Do you go around asking yourself what your great, great, great, great, great, great grandparents were doing before you existed? For your sake, I hope not lol
“Remember Islam as a religion did not come along until very, VERY! recently,” That is a misconception about Islam, we believe that the very first human ever sent to earth (Adam) was Human and that all the prophets from Noah all the way to Mohammed all came with the same message which was to obey 1 single god. That is why we respect and believe in ALL the prophets since they came with the same message, denying one would be the same as denying all. What Prophet Mohammed did was bring the last and final message which took all the previous messages and improved upon thus, completing the message that started from day 1.

“Contrary to popular belief the Quran has been changed from its supposed original and most certainly, interpretation of the writing has changed as culture has changed” Another misconception, I could go on and explain but, please use this short youtube video as it does a much better job than I could.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBxN3iwF9YE

“Correct, but I would say 13.8 billion years since the big bang” Sure, I would say ok to the 13.8 billion years. Also, as Muslims we do believe in the big bang, its in the Quran.
“in this age, arguably the age of science, innovation has sped up greatly compared to ages past, ages where Islam was a major part of.” Yes, but you what does that have to do with anything? Islam never came and said “Do not innovate and keep living in the dessert” The Quran constantly challenges people to think. The very first word revealed in the Quran is Iqra, which has many meanings and some of them are read, learn, explore, ponder, think, wonder and so on. So if the very first word that came down was that, how does the fact that Islam came 1439 years ago have anything to do with this era being so technologically advanced? Also, we say this era is technologically advanced, its 100 years from now people will think we lived live cave men, so I believe that’s what you would called the fallacy of presintism. Please correct me if I am wrong. But in anycase I don’t see how that even remotely contradicts the Quran or Islam in general.

“That is going to take some work, but if you want to do that I will be happy to let you start and I will tell you if I agree.” Yup, let’s do it I think it would be beneficial.

“I debated/talked about this stuff long enough to fully realize we are going to talk past each other a lot” Same here so let’s start a new thread and make a consciousness effort to not repeat our past mistakes and actually try to at least reach some sort of common ground. I am not saying we must agree on anything or everything but, lets see where we have common ground and take it from there. By the way, the Quran also says (I am paraphrasing) that when you have a dispute with someone the best thing to do first is try to find common ground then worry about the difference later since it will make those difference easier to discuss.

“I agree, getting us to agree what constitutes as evidence is a great starting point, but it is a very philosophical question that may never have an answer we can both agree on because at the very core of the way we view the world are different.” Well, let’s start anyway and give it shot. I will start a new thread tomorrow I will title it something along the lines of “Muslim/Atheist common grounds: evidence. I will try to lay out some guidelines and the objective in my initial post and you (and others) are free to comment on it and let’s see where it goes.

By the way, serious question (I know it will make me look like a noob) how do I cite/quote the way you do? I know the way I do it is often confuses me while proofreading it and arakish also pointed that out. I do not see any setting or buttons I can use on this site.

LogicFTW's picture
First how to quote: Copy and

First how to quote: "less than sign here with no spaces"blockquote"greater than sign here with no spaces" Copy and paste what you are quoting here "less than sign here with no spaces"/blockquote"greater than sign here with no spaces" To speed up the use of block quoting, I typically type out the blockquote format once, then copy and paste it a bunch of times, then fill in the quoted stuff.

Another one I frequently use is strong bolded text here /strong (same opening and closing less than and greater signs)

Whole list of them, the rest I do not use much: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/filter/tips if the above did not make sense (I can not type the actual less than and greater signs here as the forums then reads and uses the code without showing said code.)

Nylar put up a good post about using these forums and finding new post etc here: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/site-support/useful-forum-tips

Please don't abuse these formatting tricks or admin may have to take it away from all of us.
⊗⊕⊗⊕⊗⊕⊗⊕⊗⊕⊗⊕⊗⊕⊗⊕⊗⊕⊗⊕⊗⊕⊗⊕⊗⊕⊗⊕⊗⊕⊗⊕⊗⊕⊗⊕

Has science been able to prove otherwise? Just trying to understand how it goes against science.

It is not necessarily about has science been able to prove otherwise, it more of a: how does a "god" do what it does w/o breaking science? The word "all powerful" and "magic" gets thrown around a lot. Doing something major like having the power to be "the lord of the universe" or to be the owner (carry out) judgement day requires enormous change, how does this change happen without breaking everything in science? How does a god, just on... will? make these things happen? Back to my wish for a billion dollars, we humans can not, because we are bound by science. We cannot spontaneously re-arrange the electron forces of atoms to form into a huge pile of money, our brains nor our bodies have the ability to control atom electron forces/spin in such a way to put together untold trillions of atoms in that way out of the atoms available in the area. Why is a god able to do this? Is Allah capable of re-arranging trillions upon trillions of atoms in such a precise way instantly exactly the way he wants? How does he do this in an near instantaneous matter, science findings preclude this from happening. What about all the energy involved? When we split an atom on an unstable base element, enormous energy is released and/or used.

Actually, on the contrary its specific and straight forward.

I think we will have to agree to disagree here, perhaps lots is lost in translation as you said, but ever read a well written scientific report? Perhaps a corners report? Or maybe a well crafted legal document? Yes they bury you in terminology and industry specific lingo but it is precise. Actual fact is very carefully laid out, in it's own section, opinion sections are clearly labeled, exact wording is used, and often times on the fact parts you are left to form your own conclusions from the exacting data collected. I am not saying Sura Al-Fatiha is super imprecise, but it is also not very precise. Lord? There are many different meanings of lord. Gracious? Merciful? Both adjectives that are very much open to interpretation. Help? What is help? Strait path? What is that? The following line tries to elaborate on it some but still in my mind keeps it vague, using grace, "your anger" and astray.

There are a plethora of books already written for people that truly want to understand that Quran by scholars that have spent their lives understanding the religion and its traditions

I will have to admit, I am not very interested in taking the time to try to truly understand the Quran, and it is fair to say that makes me a bit ignorant in that specific area. As we will continue to discuss, I need to have an evidenced based reason to take the time to read that sort of thing (again this applies to any major religion that I know of, not just the Quran.)

Yes, and no sane person on earth (Muslim or atheist) would believe they can and there is nothing in the Quran that says a Muslim can or should believe something like this is even possible.

Well Muslims believe their god could do this if Allah so wished.

“Do you think the universe is ~13.8 billion years old?” As I said before it’s irrelevant to our belief. If scientists were able to prove then I would most likely believe it

They have proved it. At least within a billion years or so. And it should be said: the known universe is at least 13.8 billion years old, it may actually be even older. Really a simple calculation of observing the most distant objects observable with equipment and calculating speed of light + travel.

“If so what was your god doing with all that time?” Again, it is irrelevant to our faith as it is.

What Allah did with 99.9999% of its time is irrelevant? I suppose that is fair, we humans do tend to think it is all about us.

please use this short youtube video

I rarely watch youtube videos on this sort of topic, but you say it is short. I may watch it later if conversation continues to go in that direction.

Also, as Muslims we do believe in the big bang, its in the Quran.

Great! Already something we can agree on, believing in the big bang. I am guessing you mean it is in the quran in the sense of a large explosion created by god that brought everything into being. Obviously the term "big bang" is not used as it is a term that did not come along until at least 1000 years after the Quran was written.

try to find common ground then worry about the difference later since it will make those difference easier to discuss.

I do agree with this.

I will start a new thread tomorrow I will title it something along the lines of “Muslim/Atheist common grounds: evidence.

I will look for it. I already have some ideas of where to start with evidence that I would like to add.

Cognostic's picture
What the so called Nay-Sayers

What the so called Nay-Sayers do is attempt to argue science on a philosophical perspective. These arguments are erroneous. What scientific method does is remove science from the philosophical and place it squarely in the realm of the physical. Is belief in the scientific method circular? Yes. It does not follow that it is a fallacy however. The method is demonstrable. Science is not a thing. It is a method of inquiry that gets results. Is there an equal method of inquiry for the proof or existence of a god or Gods. Science and the scientific method proves its worth every day with hard factual evidence. It works. Please demonstrate the same evidence supporting your God.

JoC's picture
Sole belief in the scientific

Sole belief in the scientific method is circular as you’ve admitted. A circular argument is in fact fallacious. While I’ll agree with you that it does not make it necessarily false, what it does show is that the proposition that the scientific method is the only way for us to get knowledge is a self-refuting propoposition.

I think the only thing I’m trying to show here is that there are in fact other areas of knowledge and other methods of knowing things other than the scientific method. In other words, there are things other than the physical realm. Scientific inquiry and the scientific method are great but they cannot answer all of our questions. They can’t even begin to answer certain questions in other fields.

Here’s an example. Science cannot answer the question of what is morally right and wrong.

arakish's picture
Here’s an example. Science

Here’s an example. Science cannot answer the question of what is morally right and wrong.

Neither can religion.

But the tools of science can: Critical Thinking, Logical Deduction, Rationality, Reasoning. None of these has religion ever had.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
Beat me to it, well done.

Beat me to it, well done. Religious morality has changed gradually with secular morality, though it has resisted the whole way of course, and still does. Religious morality gave is the crusades, the inquisition, and slavery to name just a few. Secular morals have a clean slate as atheism has no doctrine it has to adhere to, and science can help us as never before to understand the world we live on, and how our actions impact on others and the planet and other species. What profound moral message is produced by the idea that all life was created for us to have dominion over, and everything was created with us in mind. Or that gay people are an abomination, or that slaves should obey their masters, even the cruel ones, and on and on and on both bible and koran go in the same vein.

Give me science and reason any day as basis to help us make better informed moral decisions.

JoC's picture
I'm not saying religion has

I'm not saying religion has the answer to this either. Which is why I'm being careful with my words. The only thing I am implying is that there does exist a field of knowledge that deals with right or wrong - Ethics.

There are many many situations in Ethics which practically defy scientific inquiry. Btw, critical thinking, logical deduction, rationality, reason - all of them are tools of Philosophy - another field of knowledge that isn't governed by the same rules as science.

Sheldon's picture
"Sole belief in the

"Sole belief in the scientific method is circular as you’ve admitted. A circular argument is in fact fallacious."

As opposed to sole belief in a fictional deities, brilliant.

"Here’s an example. Science cannot answer the question of what is morally right and wrong."

Science can absolutely inform out morals, since our morality is based on our reason and science is a method to expand our knowledge. Now I don't know about theists, but I find my reasoning benefits from knowledge, and suffers from the lack of it. However there is a far more obvious refutation here, and that is that theism can't answer the question of what is morally right and wrong, unless of course things like genocide, slavery, homophobia, and racism are considered moral, as they're endorsed in both the bible and the koran.

Of course if you're still not convinced we could run a simple test.

Theist morals: Spread hateful bigoted prejudice against people because a book says so, even though they harm no one.

Atheistic scientific morals Gay lesbian and transgender people are not ill, do not harm anyone, research and evidence shows they can be decent and productive citizens when treated equally.

Theists morality: an insentient blastocyst has an undetectable magic soul, and this makes it wrong to terminate it, no matter how much suffering and emotional trauma it may cause the woman whose body it needs to keep developing, even if it kills her, or if she is a child who got pregnant by being raped.

Atheist scientific morals: a blastocyst is insentient, can feel no pain, and experience no emotion, and can store no memories, therefore before it develops these traits a woman should have the right to terminate it, as it is her body it is using.

I could go on of course...stem cell research that has the potential cure disease and stop untold physical and emotional suffering, blocked by religions because of that undetectable magic soul thingy...

JoC's picture
Clap clap clap...

Clap clap clap...

You've successfully torn down strawmen.

Take a step back. I never said religion or belief in deities has the answer either. I left my last comment hoping to get a question and answer back with "Ethics". Ethics is a field of knowledge that deals with right or wrong. I haven't introduced religion into the conversation.

arakish's picture
JoC: I haven't introduced

JoC: I haven't introduced religion into the conversation. Reference.

JoC: I think the only thing I’m trying to show here is that there are in fact other areas of knowledge and other methods of knowing things other than the scientific method. In other words, there are things other than the physical realm. Reference.

You insinuate such with this statement. Please explain how any knowledge can come from anywhere else other than the physical realm.

JoC: There are many many situations in Ethics which practically defy scientific inquiry.

E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E.

JoC: Btw, critical thinking, logical deduction, rationality, reason - all of them are tools of Philosophy

Yes, borrowed from, but used in different method to derive truth. Religion still does not know how to use these tools. In fact, the only tools religion has is faith, which is the blind belief in anything that cannot be proven. Religion has no tools which actually uses anything close to intelligence except how to lie, how to create credible innuendoes in order to control and enslave humanity. Or, at least attempt to do so.

From another point of view, you can say religion stabbed itself in the back by supporting the truly intelligent persons with the order, "Here is our conclusion. Now find the data to prove it." The only problem is that the data disproved that conclusion and continues to do so.

JoC: I daresay, modern science stemmed from religion. It came from the belief that God created the world and people, wanting to know God through his creation, sought to understand the creation.

Yes. Correct. However, as they realized that science was showing their faith to be false because the scientists were discovering data that proved the supposed answers that religion professed to be false.

As Neil deGrasse Tyson said (I paraphrase), "As science progresses in accumulating knowledge, it forces God into an ever receedingly smaller and smaller pocket."

And this is another reason why the theists have become so violent and hateful. As the veracity of your beliefs continue to crumble, you are forced to fight tooth and nail in order to keep hold of something that, in the least subconsciously, you KNOW is just a bunch of bullshit.

Do not get me wrong. I shall be the first to admit that there IS some good material written in the Bible. However, its overall contradictiveness and violent and hateful and bigotry and immorality outweighs that good material.

You know the good and the bad in the Bible is exactly like customer satisfaction to a business. Excluding ALL WWW social media functions, and using ONLY word-of-mouth, if you satisfy one customer, that customer will tell only 2 other people. Piss one customer off, and that customer will tell 25 other people. And there have been studies done showing this has veracity. That means bad outweighs good 12½ to 1.

Has anyone ever done a tabulation on the verses in the Bible based on good/indifferent/evil? Doesn't matter. Just one immoral/evil verse would require 13 moral/good ones just break back even.

rmfr

JoC's picture
"JoC: There are many many

"JoC: There are many many situations in Ethics which practically defy scientific inquiry.

E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E."

One need only look at the several trolley problems or modified versions thereof to see that science cannot resolve certain moral dilemmas. Here's an example:

There's a railroad with 5 people tied to it and a train is speeding towards them. You have the option to push a rather large gentleman onto the tracks knowing that his weight is enough to successfully stop the train from running over the 5 people. Is it morally right to do this?

From a scientific perspective, you'd have a situation wherein either 5 or 1 person dies. Math logically tells us that 5 is greater than 1 and thus the good of the 5 will trump the good of the 1. However, Ethics will dictate that we don't do evil things to advance good ends (the ends don't justify the means). And although you have the opportunity to save the 5 by sacrificing one, ethics tells that we ought not do that.

Nyarlathotep's picture
JoC - Math logically tells

JoC - Math logically tells us that 5 is greater than 1 and thus the good of the 5 will trump the good of the 1.

What math does not tell you: is how to assign values to those groups. You did that with your own bias.

arakish's picture
"JoC: There are many many
"JoC: There are many many situations in Ethics which practically defy scientific inquiry.

E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E."

One need only look at the several trolley problems or modified versions thereof to see that science cannot resolve certain moral dilemmas. Here's an example:

There's a railroad with 5 people tied to it and a train is speeding towards them. You have the option to push a rather large gentleman onto the tracks knowing that his weight is enough to successfully stop the train from running over the 5 people. Is it morally right to do this?

From a scientific perspective, you'd have a situation wherein either 5 or 1 person dies. Math logically tells us that 5 is greater than 1 and thus the good of the 5 will trump the good of the 1. However, Ethics will dictate that we don't do evil things to advance good ends (the ends don't justify the means). And although you have the opportunity to save the 5 by sacrificing one, ethics tells that we ought not do that.

Scientifically simple. As has been said, especially by you Christians, the GOOD on the tribe shall always trump the GOOD of the one. Why save the one when that would actually mean the extinction of the tribe? Save the tribe and it coninues on, even if one must be sacrificed.

Next.

rmfr

arakish's picture
OK. I think you may have

OK. I think you may have wanted a more detailed answer. I am still going with my first answer.

Scientifically simple. As has been said, especially by you Christians, the GOOD on the tribe shall always trump the GOOD of the one. Why save the one when that would actually mean the extinction of the tribe? Save the tribe and it coninues on, even if one must be sacrificed.

When it comes to ethical dilemmas as you presented, I become literally like Mr. Spock of Star Trek fame. Emotions and ethics are thrown out and replaced with logic. Even you pointed this out.

Ethics is the problem you Absolutists realized early on. Even those in the RCC knew that if they were to survive and enslave all of humanity with their mind virus, they had to throw out ethics and use only logic.

Ethics would dictate to them that it is completely wrong and immoral and inethical to infect the human species with a mind virus as insidious as Christianity. Ethics would also dictate that to raise the species up, they should also teach their brethren how to read, how to think.

However, logic would dictate that if they were to survive in their postiions of power and authority, they had to infect the human speicies with their mind virus and force it onto them through fear and intimidation. They had to deny them the right to know how to read, how to think. Logically, they had no alternative other than to command them on what to think.

I have said many, many times on these forums that it is more important how to think rather than to be told what to think.

I am going to paraphrase something I said in another thread about whether I would want to be worshipped or not.

Would I want to the worshiped? Hell NO!

Anyone crazy enough to worship me is too crazy for me to have a relationship with. Respect, Communication, Honesty, Trust, Love. The five most important factors of any relationship.

I want to be equal with anyone I am going to have a relationship with.

If I cannot be on equal terms with the one I want to have a relationship with, then it simply becomes that a dictator and subject. I CANNOT have that kind of relationship. And if someone decides they want to worship me, then I shall be the first one to walk away.

However, you Christians are the first ones to lord it over others due to your enforced narcissistic personality disorder.

Here is an moral/ethical lesson for you:

If you are to truly interpret the Bible, you will find that the Bible tells us only one thing: We are to obey and believe as we are told. This is not objective morality/ethics; rather, it is totalitarian dictated edicts. The Bible creates the illusion that Christians are better than others (narcissistic personality disorder), allowing them to justify all their crimes and be even worse criminals as those they say are immoral.

And the worst part of the Bible and being a Christian is that there is no higher level thinking allowed to evaluate anything. You are not allowed to ask any questions about the Bible and beliefs. You are to be obedient and believe what you are told (Remember the how to think thing?). This is demeaning, diminishes humanity, and perverts believers into immoral persons concerned about things normally dismissed as evil. The act of love/sex becomes evil, an act of sin. Violence committed against those who are not believers suddenly becomes morally justified. To see the naked breast of a woman is condemned as lustful sin. However, seeing persons dismembered and murdered in the Name of God is perfectly okay. As David Blickstein said on Twitter, “Children watching violence on television, BAD. Children in church seeing a lifelike grotesque statue of a crucified man, GOOD. Makes sense?

And here are some questions I want answered, and do not give me your bullshit Biblical Apologetics:

  • Why do you Christians, view it is an infringement on your rights when you are told you CANNOT force your beliefs onto others?
  • Why do you feel it is your right to practice child-abuse with your religious indoctrination utilizing mental rape, emotional molestation, and psychological terrorism?

Furthermore, I want your answers to the above questions capable of withstanding the scrutiny of the scientific method and peer-review.

To convince children that they are born evil/sinful is unconscionable (not guided by conscience; unscrupulous; not in accordance with what is just or reasonable). What kind of immoral monster is going to tell their children that they are born evil/sinful, born of evil/sin, born into evil/sin, and must have an imaginative Sky–Faerie and Magic Zombie Virgin to save them? You stupid, idiotic, and retarded Christians have it so damned backwards. Evil and sin had not one damned thing to do with it. Children are always born from love (Well, 90% at least?). I for one, always told my daughters they came about from the absolute love my wife and I had for each other because we were SoulMates. Literally one soul, one heart. It was an Act Of Pure True Love Between SoulMates that created my daughters. NEVER that bullshit diarrhea you Christians spew.

Even my daughters said as much when we let them go to church to “find the answers for themselves.” They said the main reason was how you Christians taught them how they came into this world from evil and sin. They said it was despicable of you to say they came into this world due to a sinful and evil act instead of the True Truth. Something no Christian is capable of speaking. Not a damned one of you.

How dare you sorry pieces of human filth and garbage dictate to me that the absolute love my wife and I had for each other, and how we expressed that love, is nothing more that an act of evil and sin. If that is how you sorry pieces of human excrement want to teach ethics to children, then just get the fuck off my planet!

That is your sorry ethics/morals. That is also where your inferiority complex disorder originates.

When it comes to applying science to ethics, you shall never defeat me. And the simple reason is I use logic, instead of emotions utilizing the immoral and inethical teachings of a Bronze Age textbook that has absolutely no relevance for the human species. Never has. Never shall.

I posted this elsewhere, but it is definitely applicable to you: The only reason you Christians cannot smell the bullshit of the Bible is because you are full of it.

Oh. And to answer your question. Yes, it is immoral/inethical to push the fat man in front of the train to stop it from killing the other five. However, this is nothing more than the "lesser of two evils" game. And yes, it is less immoral/inethical to save the five persons while sacrificing one. Furthermore, you have also saved the tribe somewhat. They only need to gather food for five persons instead of seven, or more. Because the fat man, to be fat enough to stop the train, he has to be consuming enough food for at least two person, if not more.

Yes, logic can seem cruel and heartless. However, it is not. Logic just is.

Now I challenge you to the same dilemma. What is your answer? Kill the one to save the five? Or, kill the five to save the one?

rmfr

Iain's picture
JoC

JoC

This may or may not be true, however we can look at morality like this: Imagine the worst possible scenario for everyone. Anything that is not within that scenario, by definition, has to be better. Your reality (or consciousness) will take you the rest of the way.

JoC's picture
That isn't what morality is

That isn't what morality is though. What you're proposing is that every single person can determine what is right or wrong, basically.

arakish's picture
Because every person can.

Because every person can.

rmfr

JoC's picture
Wow! I'd love in live in your

Wow! I'd love in live in your imaginary world.

LogicFTW's picture
Why is being able to

Why is being able to determine right or wrong for yourself suddenly put the whole concept in an imaginary world?

When you decide to pay for something instead of stealing it, did some special force, force you to do it? Did god take over your body and preclude you from stealing? No, obviously not, you chose to not steal. You determined that stealing is wrong and paying for it was right. Or you could have starving children, and the bread was a day past expiration, you decided stealing it was better than your kids going hungry tonight.

I get it, I get it, having to make decisions for yourself and living with the consequences of your own decisions without having some all mighty god idea telling you what to do can be scary for people, its okay, just like growing up, making decisions for your self is truly and amazing thing that gives you tons of freedom.

arakish's picture
Wow! I'd love in live in your

Wow! I'd love in live in your imaginary world.

First, you would have to be able to comprehend the lyrics to this song.

Imagine by John Lennon

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
Iain "Imagine the worst

Iain "Imagine the worst possible scenario for everyone. Anything that is not within that scenario, by definition, has to be better."

JoC "That isn't what morality is though."

Really?

Morality
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

Do you not think good behaviour makes the world a better place? I'm curious do you think moral and immoral behaviours and preventing/causing suffering are linked in any way?

"What you're proposing is that every single person can determine what is right or wrong, basically."

Unless their cognitive capacity is somehow impaired then yes, every adult has the ability to reason whether an action is good or not. Why on earth would you think otherwise? Do slugs have morals? Or snakes? How about chimpanzees? Do you think it is a coincidence that brain capacity is larger in animals that exhibit the capacity to determine moral behaviours?

Greensnake's picture
JoC,

JoC,

"Here’s an example. Science cannot answer the question of what is morally right and wrong.--JoC"

You are asking for a definition, not a scientific answer. You have to define "morally right" before we can even look into what rules might be workable. A huge amount of confusion in life arises from improper questions. A meaningful search for truth, especially scientific enlightenment, can't begin until the right questions are asked!

Greensnake's picture
JoC,

JoC,

The "scientific method" is a collection of workable tools for investigating physical reality. It is not a doctrinal statement, circular or otherwise! Scientists and writers occasionally sum up some of these ideas, but such lists are guides and helpful advice--not mathematical statements that apply to every scientific investigation.

Outside of chess, mathematics, and other forms of pure-logic systems, I really have no clear idea of what you might be talking about. So, maybe you should make up a list of 8 such areas of knowledge that could be called "public knowledge." I.e., knowledge that every rational mind can demonstrably rely on.

arakish's picture
Gosh. I even had a Fuzzy on

Gosh. I even had a Fuzzy on reading this title...

"You pissed on my mom's what?"

rmfr

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.