There have been many attempts by theists to prove their god at least force what they call proof on everyone else. Here is a list of some of them.
1) Many years ago proof of a creator was the eye. It was thought to be perfectly round.
Well, now we know that the eye isn't even close to being perfectly round and an eye can be forcibly evolved in flatworms. Something theists thought impossible.
2) Theists claim that everything seems to be organized and claim that that is proof of a god. But that is just falsely attributing what it seems to them and never ever proving an actual connection between a creator and that that exist. In fact, there is an experiment that shows that randomness which eventually organizes, but will also disorganize over time.
3) Theists also claim a "first cause" but they fail to actually make a connection or even prove one shred of evidence of the first causer. Stephen Hawking proved that there is no need for a god that something can indeed come from nothing.
In every attempt to prove a god, there is a huge gap and assumptions have to be made.
Recently a theist member made a list of assumption and claimed them all as fact. When called out on these premises, he scrambled and never proved any of the assumptions.
There is a member that continually uses bible verses as his proof of a god. The thing is he is using a version that has been highly edited and politically modified and bears no resemblance to the original bible. Even at that rate the first bible only came about in 325 ADE and has no substantiating evidence to corroborate it.
4) Christians claim that morality comes from god, but the fact is that morality has always come from a society. Meaning that morality is subjective, NOT objective.
There are much more, but alas there absolutely NOTHING new. It's all the same bullshit regurgitated over and over, dressed up in new close but still the same. There is no evidence of a god. Has never been evidence of a god. Will never be evidence of a god. THERE IS NO FUCKING GOD!
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I've got a question and I'll focus just on your fourth point. You say that morality is subjective not objective as it comes from society.
Does that mean that no one can, for a fact say that slavery or genocide was wrong? The most we can say is, "That would be wrong today." or "That would be wrong in the west." We can, in no certain way, know for sure if Hitler was in the wrong, or if a man raping a woman somewhere in the Middle East is wrong for doing that.
I won't dignify your question with the answer that YOU want. The fact is, that society dictates morality and always has. Now that society can be large or small but it is still the dictating force that decides morality. I often use the example of the Spartans that thought it moral to toss babies with birth defects off of a cliff to their death and at the time in their society they thought it moral because that is what their society dictated.
Therefore morality is subjective, subject to the society that dictates it.
I see. So you see nothing wrong with Spartans thinking tossing babies off a cliff is objectively wrong?
@ Jon
What a stupid statement! I didn't say that I agreed with the Spartans. It just proves that morality is subjective. That is just a fact.
Read back to my statement. I was careful not to imply you agree with them (coz really, who would?). But that you would be okay with them thinking that. I'm putting you probably 3 degrees away from the act of throwing babies off cliffs.
BULLSHIT Jon the Catholic!
You implied that I agreed with the Spartans. That was intellectually dishonest. So don't hand me any malachy about how you didn't imply that. That is exactly what you did. Oh and being a christian, you committed a sin. The sin of deceit.
Want me to restate what I said and slowly?
"So you see nothing wrong with Spartans thinking tossing babies off a cliff is objectively wrong?"
Tossing [sickly] babies off a cliff is the action that is either morally acceptable or unacceptable.
The Spartans thought this was acceptable.
We (both you and I) think this is unacceptable.
The question was do you see nothing wrong with the Spartans thinking this action was acceptable [even if you personally, think it is unacceptable].
It seems to me that you're trying to use logic (in this case, yours) to PROVE FACTS. And that's a fail. What you have done is stated a strong, and logical opinion. Which is fine. But as a person with two degrees in the natural sciences, I don't want anymore people bombarding us with facts that are not facts.
I'm sorry but this is just so ignorant and unbelievably stupid. People today can't even understand how methods of knowledge can very from field to field. Have you ever taken a math class? That's all just logical reasoning which PROVES FACTS. The reason you can't use logic alone to prove things in natural science is because there is no logical necessity or a priori reasons for why some constant is what it is or why some flower has a certain amount of peddles or so on. Whether or not God exists is not a matter of physics since God has no body or matter. It's a matter of metaphysics. The same goes for morality. Science can tell us that abortion kill a human or that drug abuse is bad for the body but it can't go any further.
I guess you won't watch it, Dumb Ox, but anyways, I recommend you (all of you) this Dawkins and Harris' discussion called "Who Says Science has Nothing to Say About Morality?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm2Jrr0tRXk
I'll write down some of the conclussions: According to Harris, moral and immoral (good and bad) can be measured by these factors: The worst possible missery for everyone (that would be objectively "bad") and the moral (good) thing to do is to avoid the "worst possible missery for everyone" and look for the well-being for everyone.
Well-being comprehends several factors, that can be objectively measured, so we don't have to depend on different subjective opinions. In this sense, there would be then a scale in between, in terms of good-bad, in which the worst possible missery for a majority would be a little less bad, but still not completely good... etc.
If your beliefs cause suffering to anyone, then they shouldn't be considered moral. And the more people suffer because of that, the more immoral they shoud be considered.
About your examples: Science proves that in the first term of the pregnancy, there's no life in there, it's just potential life. If you abort, that buch of cells don't suffer at all. They don't have nerves yet, they're not a kid. But if you oblige a woman who doesn't want to carry on pregnancy, to do it, you're probably causing this person a terrible suffering, just because of your subjective opinion. For example, some societies prohibit abortion, even in case of rape, and some even make them marry their rapists, because of their religious opinions. Or mutilate little female children... Is that moral? For them, since they don't contemplate suffering as a measurement of objective moral, it is.
Science tells you that most drugs are bad for health. We tend to consider smoking tobacco morally innocuos, and marihuana morally wrong. Tobacco kills 7 million people each year.... But there's not a single record of anyone dying because of marihuana. So... what should be considered immoral?
P.S. Sorry, I had to edit it several times because of grammar mistakes.
Science tells us that abortion does NOT kill a human.
If you take a scientific definition of human, a fetus does not equal a human. It is a fetus, with the potential to be a human.
Hi, Logic, that was my precisely my argument, but if you've felt the need to clarify it, maybe it was not properly worded. Science tells you that there's no human in the first term, no nerves, just a bunch of cells, so there's no point on making a woman suffer (I mean, feel sorrow, by that, to carry on with the pregnancy, when she doesn't want to) because other people 'morals' tell them so. So Science can help when it comes to make moral decissions, that was the whole argument on my post, if you read it from the beginning.
@Angiebot
I apologize, that was in response to Dumb Ox's post.
I forgot that, especially on mobile platforms, the "reply" boxes/lines are not clear. I need to preface every post with an @someone to help avoid confusion :)
I like your post/response to the same Dumb Ox post. You often say things much better than I do.
No problem, Logic.
And your last sentence was very kind, although I doubt it xD
- DumbOx
incorrect - and therefore your comment could also be construed as ignorant and stupid.
logic by definition is the systematic study of argument and is not something demonstrative of certain fact.
you can quite easily with logical argument form a system that whilst logically valid can still be completely false.
allow me to offer this for what I mean -
- premise: all cats are black
- premise: X is a cat
- conclusion: from premise one and two it follows that X is black
but let us imagine that X is actually brown? or white? this would mean that either X is not a cat (premise 2 would then be false) or not all cats are black (premise one is false). it is logically valid reasoning but it is still not true.
the scientific method/empiricism simply follows the evidence and produces results, theories and facts based on what is observed, tested, measured and so on.
And of course we use logic in science, where do you think the maths in equations etc come from?
empirical predictions are also logically deduced from theories.
they work hand in hand in some ways, this is why in a previous thread I said that if you make scientific claims using logic,
scientists have a duty to call you out on it and ask you to provide actual proof.
all to often I see the premise: the universe cannot be infinite. that is one of the most ridiculous statement any person can make.
"but let us imagine that X is actually brown? or white? this would mean that either X is not a cat (premise 2 would then be false) or not all cats are black (premise one is false). it is logically valid reasoning but it is still not true."
I agree with this. Which actually makes the arguments for God pretty straight forward to disprove. Discredit the premises and you'll make the conclusion invalid. If it follows logically, AND the premises are all true, then the conclusion is also true.
No, because you are still required to meet a burden of proof if you make a claim, or its a simple opinion.
It is similar to me making a statement saying,
Premise 1 - The entire universe can be observed
Straight away this is false, you cannot view the entire universe. In fact it is considered in physics to likely be on a flat plane that is infinite.
If we consider that at the extremes of our observable universe there are virtual particles that have no known reason or cause, we can only imagine what conditions and systems lay further away! And rather then finding that perplexing, i find that a source of wonder!
That is very wrong Jon, and I find it hard to believe you don't know better.
Some people having false beliefs does not probe that what they were with regards to was subjective. A perfect example of this is the OP itself, some people believing God exists does not prove there I'd no objective answer to whether or not he exists, or that it is subjective that there is no God.
Morality is the distinction between actions as inherently superior it inferior. What you 'should' do and 'should not' do. Your post itself contradicts nihilism, because you stated that the belief in God is irrational superstition, and that we should believe what can be empirically proven, which is to say that that which is true is superior to that which is false. Superstition is wrong, and empiricism is right.
You cannot circumvent this- every decision you make prefers one action as opposed to another, and thereby contradicts the assertation that no actions are preferable to others. The only true nihilist is a rock or other non-living organism incapable of making choices based on beliefs or assumptions.
@Harry Truman
WHAAAAT? What a bunch of horse shit.
The OP is a statement that there has never been any proof of a god and nothing more. There have been numerous attempts at proving a god but none meet muster.
You are attempting to project this thread as some ideology war. Again an attempt to hijack it, I suspect to promote YOUR political ideology.
The OP just states that no matter how you dress it up every single attempt to prove a god has failed.
That is all there is to it. I don't know if you just don't understand that or that you are attempting to take this into yet another political catfight.
Morality is objective. That is a proven fact. It is historical in its factuality. But that was a reference to just one of the tactics of believers to justify their god. They really want everyone to believe that morality is objective and inherent because some god dictates morality, but it is clear and historical that it is not.
I absolutely agree with your statement about nihilist. I hope that you won't attempt to take this thread to a political fight but rather contribute based solely on the facts concerning what has actually been proven concerning a god!
The OP was about how a belief in God is completely unfounded, and that is why you do not believe in God. I said that this stands in direct contradiction to nihilism because it assumes that we should believe what is proven and deny what is unbiased. To say that this isn't so, and you should not accept what is proven and deny what is unfounded, would render the entire post meaningless. That is why you must concede that behaving rationally is superior to behaving irrationally. Logic is right, and stupidity is wrong.
I only talk politics in response to others talking politics. Sometimes people bring up political issues on non political forums, and sometimes things which should not be political, but which have become political because of the false premise that everything is a role of government, which leads to a larger political debate, but it is never me who turns anything political. I made three posts prior to this one here, and only one of them is even loosely political. I even made a post myself about baby bunnies, which isn't political in the slightest. But I guess somewhere along the road some authoritarian idiot will come up with the ludicrous idea that the state has some kind of right to mandate how many rabbits you can own, and if I say that I have a right to own however many rabbits I can take care of, it will be interpreted as political.
Also, you once said morality was subjective. Now you are telling me it is objective and that has been settled for quite some time?
Jon
Do you think slavery and genocide is right? Your god of the bible approved slavery and genocide. I think slavery and genocide are both wrong, that makes me a better person than your god. Why do theist play the hitler card? Hitler was wrong for commanding genocide of the jews. Why do theist play the rape card? Do you think rape is wrong? Morals are decided by society, that is why we have laws against rape, genocide, and slavery.
"I think slavery and genocide are both wrong ..."
which actually help prove that there exists an objective morality. What's being discussed here is if objective morality exists. I say it does. Coz otherwise, you'd simply say that that was acceptable in that time and age. Why play the Hitler card? Because it proves a point about objective morality. The Nazis didn't think what they were doing was wrong. Their society didn't think this particular action was wrong but that doesn't make what they did any more acceptable. Otherwise, one could argue that it was wrong for the Allies to impose their morality on the Nazis.
As to God commanding these things in the OT, I suggest doing some readings on this matter.
https://brandonvogt.com/did-god-command-genocide/
This link actually points to other resources you could read on but states an important point that other sources forget to mention:
"The second thing to realize—and this is more important—is that the Bible is not a single book, but a collection of books. It contains many different genres like poetry, letters, epic sagas, creation myths, biography, and theological history. And we can’t begin to understand any particular passage until we first recognize its genre."
There are lots of books which explain these texts and how to they ought to be taken. Another point would be that as a written work, the author would be allowed to use literary devices like hyperbole, metaphors, etc. It's like when you say Team A destroyed Team B in basketball, you don't take that to mean the first team killed everyone on Team B.
@Jon the Catholic: "Otherwise, one could argue that it was wrong for the Allies to impose their morality on the Nazis."
I don't think morality had much to do with the Allies fight against the Axis. They certainly didn't go to war to save the Jews. Both America and Britain effectively blocked Jewish immigration on a significant scale, even though they knew about the concentration camps and gas chambers. Few Christian church leaders spoke out in favor of rescuing Jews. In America, blacks were still being treated little better than Jews in Germany.
The morality of the Allies also appears questionable when seen in the light of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. Those were very Old Testament actions. The Nazis did similar things to London and Coventry, but they were Nazis.
That was the state of morality in countries with nearly two millennia of Christian-dominated history. Since World War II, Christianity has declined in the West, but morality seems to have improved. Racism is now generally despised. Human rights have advanced, and Western society is becoming more inclusive. Though I have to say that some of this improvement is being reversed in America, which is (coincidentally?) the most Christian-dominated of the Western democracies.
Is there a link between the decline of Christianity and the improvement of morality?
Jon the Catholic,
When you look at the complete fairy tale you see that the Israelites were a bunch of xenophobic ethnocentric racist religious bigots homicidal maniacs. Almost all of the stories display that.
What you just proved right there, is that the Israelites were a human society, with human people who are prone to err...
Which is why we so desperately needed a savior.
The Nazis went to great lengths to conceal the worst of their actions from the population; and even inside their own ranks.
Seriously, your comparing god commanding genocide of the enemies of his chosen people, to a baseball game? Your god commanded mass murder, and his chosen people committed it. Your god told his chosen people where to buy their slaves from, and they took slaves when they conquered other people. God even told them how they could make a fellow jew a slave for life.
Hi, Jon. This is the reason why we created International Human Rights Law, which is supposed to be our moral compass in this regard. As a matter of fact, the idea of having international "absolutes" about Rights (with the Bill of Human Rights) began after WWII, to make sure things like genocide, rape, torture, etc., would be punishable in an International Court, notwithstanding individual morals.
In case anyone hasn't read the Declaration... http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html
As surprising as it can seem, before 1948, we humans weren't universally entitled to this rights. And it was something that came from Law, not from religious institutions.
Pages