I don't really get it.
Donating = Loving
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.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Pragmatic...
I am typing on phone...so keeping it short.
Quantum physics says the subatomic world is a contant flux of particles popping out of nothingness and disappearing into nothingness leaving no trace...this defies all physical laws...how then can u say that a miracle should leave some trace of the actions of god???
Valiya - " particles popping out of nothingness and disappearing into nothingness leaving no trace...this defies all physical laws"
lol not at all... You here stuff about "energy can't be created or destroyed" but that isn't the law; that is a description for the law for people who don't know mathematics. The law is dE/dt = 0, and virtual particles do not violate that.
And for what it is worth, they do leave "traces" of their passage.
You are simply asserting ur earlier claims that my understanding is unfoundrd...but i have made a strong case of specified complexity...and how it indicates intelligence...and how even u exercise thay coomonsense logic in ur everyday life...i an yet to see u break that argument...
If u actually think...u too are only apply a logic to arrive at ur kowledge...and not scientific proof...i have explained this before in this thread...so i am not claiming i know any more than you do...building upon a logical train of thoughts.
So, you are still maintaining that your god can and does, perform miracles like the example. But at the same time you are maintaining that if he does it does NOT leaves traces in our space-time continuum, even if it is a loaf of bread or a fruit, that a human can eat.
I'm sorry Valyia, but this is just childish.
You have been a very reasonable creationist to debate with, so I actually thought you would admit that this pointed out a flaw in your reasoning.
But it seems you would sacrifice your own integrity, rather than to admit to yourself that your reasoning is flawed, and try to "quantum physics" your way out of it. You can't eat the cookie and keep it too.
- "but i have made a strong case of specified complexity...and how it indicates intelligence."
No, I don't think you have, not outside of your own mind anyway.
I dont see any point in continuing this debate.
I am glad that you come at my same conclusion when debating Valyia.
Pragmatic...
yes we have made our cases...and i think there is no point in taking it farther than this.... anyways, it was nice chatting with you. take care...and hopefully we can cross swords on another thread on another topic...
TRAVIS… that was quick. You have touched on all the important points I think. Here is my response.
“Strange, because that would also mean your morality would be just as subjective as your perception, I am not sure how it wouldn't be consequential.”
As far as morality is concerned I don’t get it through assessments or measurements of the world. I take it from my scripture. That’s why I said I don’t suffer from the subjectivity crisis.
Having said that, I think I will sum up your argument for you…in order to take this forward… I think this loop of subjectivity and objectivity is not taking this discussion far.
This is what I gather your basic points are.
1. We make use of our perception to derive morality.
2. This perception is subjective.
3. However, for all practical purposes we rely on perception…and we find that it’s working out well for us to run our daily lives.
4. Therefore… although perception is subjective, it can be fairly relied upon to make judgments to derive our morality from.
5. And this morality is bound to change from time to time. This should not be seen as weakness, but rather strength, because it is through this method that mankind has made all the great strides in knowledge.
If you agree with them… here are my problems in your argumentation:
1. Moral questions at the fundamental level arise because of two clashing interests. Let me take the example of the individual vs group. Giving charity is good for the group, but bad for the individual (no one wants to lose money).
2. Arriving at an objective (convincing) way of analyzing why one interest should be compromised for the other is extremely hard to arrive at.
3. Even if such an analysis is made, it is even harder to make people implement it. Here is an example:
Charity. By giving charity, my loss is immediate and palpable. But if you said that by helping the society, the society in the long run would become a better place with less poverty and reduced crime and so on…the benefit is not immediate. Secondly, the exact way that my individual charity is going to effect this equation is impossible to measure. My 20 dollars is not going to solve poverty and crime…after all. So, even if a small percent of the wealthy in the society give charity, the society will be better off, and I can enjoy the benefits of a good society without having to shell out a penny. Even if I think the society would be a better place if everyone gave charity, how can I make sure everyone would give? What if only a few fools like me gave… the end result is going to be null anyways. Lastly, I can see all around me that the dishonest, the lying and the greedy are living a much happier life than the honest and good ones. The problems created in the group (society) by these wicked people don’t seem to be affecting them… the politicians get all the protection and special treatment, while the people they exploit and bomb suffer. These wicked guys live and die in luxury.
So, first of all, giving charity makes me poorer.
I don’t see any solid reason as to how exactly my charity is going to make the society a better place.
Living a comfortable life has nothing to do with being good…as I can see from very obvious examples in society.
If more people in the society did not believe in a God that would reward them for good and punish them for bad…the society would become a much worse place. Thankfully, a majority of the people in the world still believe in god
Valyia I have to apologize for my extended absence. In between work, illness, and my car breaking down I have been rather busy as of late. However, since I find myself home recovering from pneumonia today, I wanted to make sure that I got back with you on this issue.
"As far as morality is concerned I don’t get it through assessments or measurements of the world. I take it from my scripture. That’s why I said I don’t suffer from the subjectivity crisis."
Except that that leaves you with a two possibilities that simply don't get you away from the subjectivity crisis. Either you particular book is true, and you are basing your morality from your gods subjective perception instead of your own, or your book is false and you have adopted a morality based on the perceptions of a group of men no more capable and far less informed than yourself. Either way, you haven't evaded subjectivity, you have merely adopted another entities perception. What you have done, quite literally, is move the problem out precisely one step and pretend to have solved it; while actually having done no such thing. There is nothing to state, and no good reason to assume, that the perception of a god would be any less arbitrary or less subjective than your own.
"Having said that, I think I will sum up your argument for you…in order to take this forward… I think this loop of subjectivity and objectivity is not taking this discussion far."
If you manage to do it, this time, without creating strawmen... I might just applaud.
"This is what I gather your basic points are.
1. We make use of our perception to derive morality."
Yes, and a lot more besides. Perception is how we derive experience and knowledge itself, morality is a part of that.
"2. This perception is subjective."
Indeed.
"3. However, for all practical purposes we rely on perception…and we find that it’s working out well for us to run our daily lives."
We are rather forced to rely on our perceptions, we are not exactly spoiled for choice, it is pretty much the only way to perceive and experience the reality we live in.
"4. Therefore… although perception is subjective, it can be fairly relied upon to make judgments to derive our morality from."
You missed a critical step. You forgot to address why we are able to rely upon it at all. Which is that while our individual perceptions of a thing may be subjective, the thing itself isn't, and so with enough investigation and application of tools that don't rely on an individuals perception, we actually CAN come to a decent understanding of the thing.
"5. And this morality is bound to change from time to time. This should not be seen as weakness, but rather strength, because it is through this method that mankind has made all the great strides in knowledge."
Indeed. I have to applaud the fact that up until this point, I have found no obvious strawmen, I hope this trend continues.
"If you agree with them… here are my problems in your argumentation:
1. Moral questions at the fundamental level arise because of two clashing interests. Let me take the example of the individual vs group. Giving charity is good for the group, but bad for the individual (no one wants to lose money)."
Why go with charity? Because it seems slipperier than other conflicts? However, is it really? Last time I checked people gave to charity voluntarily, and I don't hear you condemning people who don't give as immoral. So, how is this any kind of moral dilemma?
"2. Arriving at an objective (convincing) way of analyzing why one interest should be compromised for the other is extremely hard to arrive at."
It actually isn't that hard, ask yourself two questions:
Can I afford to give?
Do I want to give?
If the answer to both is yes, then by all means give, but otherwise it is probably best that you don't.
"3. Even if such an analysis is made, it is even harder to make people implement it. "
(redacted for length and whining)
The problem here is that you are taking a completely voluntary issue, and trying to "make people implement" your voluntary actions. If you want to make some charity mandatory, which social welfare does, then do it. Otherwise, you can't really blame someone for deciding not to give their money to or toward something they don't believe in or care about. At the moment all you are really doing is whinging about how 1) The rich don't give and 2) The giving of small amounts does nothing to really help.
Well:
1. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, two of the richest people who have ever lived, give more annually than the GDP of many countries. They even run charities predicated on transparency, which we will talk about later, so you can actually see what and how much goes where.
2. Charities, real charities, realize that it is about numbers. They manage to get millions in donations by not just relying on rich people to donate vast sums of money, but by vast numbers of people donating small sums of money.
"So, first of all, giving charity makes me poorer."
I have never thought of it that way, myself. I always considered it an investment.
"I don’t see any solid reason as to how exactly my charity is going to make the society a better place."
That is rather terrible. Perhaps you should find a better charity, one that actually shows where you money is going and what for, or perhaps you should just stop giving if you are that pessimistic about it. I think your problem may be expectations, I don't expect my donations to "fix society and the world", I am quite happy enough if I know that it has actually helped even a single individual.
"Living a comfortable life has nothing to do with being good…as I can see from very obvious examples in society."
You could have a point. COULD. If only you ignore the dishonest and greedy poor people, or the honest and good comfortable people. As it is, you are mostly being irritable about the existence of dishonest and greedy people that are comfortable, as if they should exist despite being in every socioeconomic class.
"If more people in the society did not believe in a God that would reward them for good and punish them for bad…the society would become a much worse place. Thankfully, a majority of the people in the world still believe in god"
A. This is actually an argument from consequence, which is a logical fallacy by definition. Even if it were true that believing in god made people better, which is quite imminently arguable by statistics, that would not make god real or the belief in it justified.
B. Using the aforementioned example, charity, we begin to see a problem with your argument. In my country 74% of all charitable giving is done to religious organizations, and by all our best assessments, only about 32-33 cents on the dollar actually go to people or projects they stated it would. Compared to many secular charities that are transparent with their finances and show that anywhere from 70-85 cents on the dollar actually leaves the bank toward their stated goals. Hmmm...
C. We judge societies by statistics, with what we call social health factors:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.pdf
So, we have a contention now, you have literally stated that atheism has a NEGATIVE correlation to morality. Would you like to prove that assertion, or should we dismiss it as an attempt to poison the well sans evidence? Hmm... I shall use my suuuuper secret powers of precognition to help here.
Me: Atheism has in inverse correlation to violent crimes. We are LESS likely to kill, rape, assault, or maim others than a religious person(excluding Jainism).
You: That doesn't mean anything!
Round and round we will go, you claiming to have the moral high ground, and never being able to prove it. Me, merely stating that atheists are at least as moral as religious people, and you claiming that it proves nothing. All the while, no practical application of the term morality can be demonstrated by the religious except semantically redefining the term to exclude atheists, and we will get nowhere.
My word, talk about a discussion!! I'll say it again...as in the words of comedian George Carlin, "killing suddenly becomes negotiable if you do not believe as I ( theists) do. And the more religious the person is, the more negotiable killing becomes!" But honestly, these discussions can go on forever, and around and around they will go in a big circle. Neither side will change the mind of the other...when you can show someone proof, evidence, scientific studies, DNA,fossils, planets, proof of explosions in the atmosphere ( there IS SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE "BIG BANG", and evolution which theists don't want to hear about even though these things make sense) and that person or persons' STILL chooses to ignore it...who is fooling whom? They are only kidding themselves....nothing you can do about that.
I hear ya.
But If you think of The Bible--Not as The Word of God--but rather as the book of the Devil, as it were the Devil's pseudo-historical memoirs of hating his people....well, it just makes a lot more sense that way.
That is "The Bible is the history of God [read 'Devil'] hating people and what he does to them because of it."
I have much more to say, but that drive us off topic.
I hear ya.
But If you think of The Bible--Not as The Word of God--but rather as the book of the Devil, as it were the Devil's pseudo-historical memoirs of hating his people....well, it just makes a lot more sense that way.
That is "The Bible is the history of God [read 'Devil'] hating people and what he does to them because of it."
I have much more to say, but that drive us off topic.
Pages