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.
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.
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.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Nyarlathotep,
In order to see if I was truly being illogical, I conducted a test. At the time of this post, I got 5 people to answer if your statement would naturally imply the conclusion I drew. I postulated 3 questions each with similar rational 2 religious and one non religious to dissuade from any bias. These were the questions:
1) If John Smith says "There is MUCH evidence for the life/death/resurrection of Jesus Christ"
Then is it safe to extrapolate with about 80%+ certainty John concludes that therefore Jesus Christ DOES exist?
2) If John Smith says "There is NO evidence for the life/death/resurrection of Jesus Christ"
Then is it safe to extrapolate with about 80%+ certainty John concludes that therefore Jesus Christ DID NOT exist?
3) ) If John Smith says "There is No evidence to support that Jane Smith is a bad person"
Then is it safe to extrapolate with about 80%+ certainty John concludes that therefore Jane Smith is a Good person?
Of those 5 people 2 were Christian and 3 I am postulating were Atheist. Of those 5 people 3 responded via forum on this website and two responded directly because I asked them in person. I asked your question word for word to avoid anything being misconstrued. Of the 5, 3 actually engaged in the question and confirmed my reasoning and 2 abstained and didn't engage on the basis of me not giving more information though I stated that I could not provide more information because that could potentially make a bias toward my perspective - please note that individuals stopped engaging in the study after several individuals, including yourself, derailed the conversation; though, it wasn't necessary. I'm not sure if you did this on purpose because you saw that my data was supporting my claim (one person I believe may be atheist confirmed my position and perhaps you wanted to stop it at one), but I digress. That means that out of a sample size of 5 (small I know; I wish I had more) I'll state that until I get more honest data it is rational to draw the conclusion I drew.
Most of our discussion and disagreement about this stemmed from your statement and my apparent misinterpretation of it. I already told you that if I was wrong I am sorry.
You have to realize (as I sure you do) that statements have implications. You also have to be aware of these implications. I see now that you are either A oblivious to these implications (which is possible), even though 3/5 would affirm that there are implications, or B, you know what the implications are but are rather attempting to frustrate me so that I come of as sounding irritated on this thread when a you make a claim but then run away from it's natural implications which have been confirmed by 3/5 people.
I hope its the earlier, but unfortunately, after what I have seen on this thread and the thread where I was collecting this data, it appears that you and mykob4 are really consistent at running away from core arguments of a thread and throwing personal insults around. It really appears that instead of really discussing a topic you guys and some others (NOT EVERYONE HERE THANKFULLY!) have been more skilled at derailing a topic and going into personal attack and trying to keep people going back and fourth on personal attack then trying to get to the heart of a topic and attempt to finish it. I'm not sure why you guys aren't willing to finish a debate even if it is a conclusion of "we'll agree to disagree".
I thought Atheists were interested in the truth! I really thought that I would come on here and find people who could have a conversation without relying on those types of insults to try and win a debate rather than making and fostering a space of honest reflection on one's point and keeping to that point until that point is resolved. This is what is done in academic circles and I have seen that many atheists are highly educated so I assumed that it would likely be the case here on this thread. I still think I may find it.
On another thread for example someone made a claim about scripture, they quoted a verse and said God was bad because of that verse. This quote was incorrect and found no where in scripture. I knew this but I also knew that his claim WAS INDEED supported by scripture. Instead of attacking his false quote and insulting him and derailing the discussion in such a way; I rather, in order to be faithful to a pursuit of truth I actually corrected him and SUPPORTED his argument (which I disagreed with) with a scripture that would confirm his accusation against God. I helped him out not because I think he's dumb. I think he's actually very intelligent. I think you guys are all actually very intelligent and am impressed when people bring up certain points (not insults). One reason why I'm on this website is because debating with people who have real questions and honestly search and question makes me really evaluate what I believe and get better or discard things that may be invalid. This kind of pursuit is what I was hoping to find here. I think I still can. I think I still can find that in you too as well as Mykob4. How are you guys supposed to win me over to your position if 80-90% of my discussions with you is not discussing core points but deflecting and receiving personal attacks that everyone auto-agrees to whether its supported or not?
I'm sorry if I have wrongly insulted you; again it is not my intention to be malicious or evil. If you point out that this is true and it is supported well I will repent and apologize to you =]. But until then I'm hoping that here on out I can find eventually a thread where we discuss these matters with the heart that really asks: What is truth? and pursue that answer responsibly, peacefully, and even passionately but why should it ever be disrespectful if you are pursuing truth?
I will now drop this subject and I look forward to your reply and discussions on other threads.
Whatistruth(stupid and inaccurate moniker) is telling atheists what we think. He doesn't know and cannot know. He is dishonest. He modifies evidence to fit HIS fucking narrative. He hasn't met the minimum requirement for proof of anything. Furthermore, he is lazy. He wants us to do research for him. he relies on propaganda from very biased and inaccurate YouTube videos. So he IS a liar by default. He doesn't accept credible evidence because it doesn't fit HIS narrative. This makes him dishonest. When confronted with overwhelming evidence and logic, he moves the goal post. DISHONEST! he keeps using childish unrelated scenarios in an attempt to make his narrative acceptable. It's NOT!
There is nothing of value in this thread, NOTHING.
What we have learned here is simply this. A highly brainwashed child posted a propaganda video and can't defend it.
Here's what actually happens.
A young kid, all smug and self-righteous, decides that he is going to end atheism once and for all. He searches out YouTube videos to find something that he thinks will do that. Then he finds an atheist forum where he can be a smug condescending smart ass. He posts the video. He gets his ass handed to him by the members of the forum. He can't believe it. He has never faced intelligent well-educated people before. People that know history and even the bible far better than he has ever experienced before. It completely unsettles him. So now he is in an endless circle of being shot down because he has nothing, absolutely nothing. he is like a trapped animal trying desperately to defend the indefensible. Panic sets in. What does he do? He digs a deeper hole of stupidity. He keeps posting pointless drivel.
So let's just put him out of his misery and lock this thread.
I'm glad that you have explained why you think what you think! I shall think on this and engage when I have time.
Hey guys! I do think we've exhausted this thread now. I have shown as best I can that Objective morals cant exist without a supreme authority (my authority postulated would be God) but subjective morals can. This was the only point of the thread. No one has pointed out an existing supreme authority which is not subjective and therefore the point still stands. Many accusations have been thrown, but still no one has proven otherwise by bringing up a point that cannot be answered and therefore the point still stands.
From my observation the thread is now going into side arguments and not the core points of the video since we have either all agreed (no such thing as objective morals) or disagreed for whatever reason. Regardless, our lines are drawn and until someone engages the core points in the video its point still stands. Not one of God's existence or non existence but rather a morally objection-less world relegates all rules by one man or many men appointed/naturally born is relegated to the definition of nothing more than opinion. All rules like murder, rape, theft, running a red light, must all logically be seen as subjective morality and therefore simply opinion that should be obeyed for self preservation or societal preservation (and societal preservation for the purpose of self preservation) but should not label someone as objectively good or bad. Any one with this world view who labels someone good or bad must therefore understand that such terms are extraordinarily useless in describing someone since in such a world good and evil do not exist. Good/evil, bad, etc should all be relegated to be religious words and abolished along with all religions according to such a world view. There are grave implications for this. For one any criminal has grounds to attempt to escape without objections of conscious on the basis of groundless law. There are many other implications but those are serious and should be thought about to begin with.
This was not a does God exist thread. Simply a morality thread. I have thoroughly explained why this was and I think that most people reading this thread should see why. I shall now start another thread on this topic because I think it is an important one. Until someone engages in the core points of the video and its claims. I will temporary leave this thread to engage in other threads including ones started for the existence of our first premise the existence of Jesus Christ. =]
This thread has been fun guys. I'll probably comment on some side arguments here and there from time to time. I'm sure that any accusations leveled against me shall stand the test of time or just like an objectionless world be proven groundless even though in an objectionless world they already are.
@Whatistruth
I sincerely hope not. You have no idea of how to construct a plausible argument. Your assessment is incorrect.
You failed to defend the video you posted. You changed definitions to fit your narrative. You misquoted people then attacked that misquote. You created unrelated scenarios that were irrelevant. You dismissed credible facts that were referenced and cited. You ignored your responsibility to prove with credible evidence any of your claims.
So please get an education (a real one) before you comment. I don't think anyone here actually will consider anything you post as valid. I know I won't.
You lack critical thought. You lack discipline. You lack honesty and integrity. You are mired in a propaganda brainwashed world of mythology. You have an agenda without cause or reason.
OK, I'm now asking for the third time why you used the word "IF" here when I had twice previously told you exactly what I meant and didn't mean.
Oh! Now I see what you're asking. I don't want you to think I'm ignoring your question so yes I apologize for being wrong Nyarlathotep! It was an honest human error. You stated "There is no evidence for the life/death/resurrection of Jesus Christ" And I believed that the natural implication to this statement is that you concluded that therefore Jesus Christ did not exist. But according to you, this was not your conclusion. Rather you simply meant only what you stated.
I have also made an honest attempt to try to gain outside opinion by asking others your exact words to see if I was wrong. The majority supported my conclusion but I still think I can learn something from this. In summary I think from now on if a comment seems fuzzy (though I do not believe yours was) I will be careful to clarify what you and others mean. I will now re-post my last comment because I'm not sure if you got it:
Nyarlathotep,
In order to see if I was truly being illogical, I conducted a test. At the time of this post, I got 5 people to answer if your statement would naturally imply the conclusion I drew. I postulated 3 questions each with similar rational 2 religious and one non religious to dissuade from any bias. These were the questions:
1) If John Smith says "There is MUCH evidence for the life/death/resurrection of Jesus Christ"
Then is it safe to extrapolate with about 80%+ certainty John concludes that therefore Jesus Christ DOES exist?
2) If John Smith says "There is NO evidence for the life/death/resurrection of Jesus Christ"
Then is it safe to extrapolate with about 80%+ certainty John concludes that therefore Jesus Christ DID NOT exist?
3) ) If John Smith says "There is No evidence to support that Jane Smith is a bad person"
Then is it safe to extrapolate with about 80%+ certainty John concludes that therefore Jane Smith is a Good person?
Of those 5 people 2 were Christian and 3 I am postulating were Atheist. Of those 5 people 3 responded via forum on this website and two responded directly because I asked them in person. I asked your question word for word to avoid anything being misconstrued. Of the 5, 3 actually engaged in the question and confirmed my reasoning and 2 abstained and didn't engage on the basis of me not giving more information though I stated that I could not provide more information because that could potentially make a bias toward my perspective - please note that individuals stopped engaging in the study after several individuals, including yourself, derailed the conversation; though, it wasn't necessary. I'm not sure if you did this on purpose because you saw that my data was supporting my claim (one person I believe may be atheist confirmed my position and perhaps you wanted to stop it at one), but I digress. That means that out of a sample size of 5 (small I know; I wish I had more) I'll state that until I get more honest data it is rational to draw the conclusion I drew.
Most of our discussion and disagreement about this stemmed from your statement and my apparent misinterpretation of it. I already told you that if I was wrong I am sorry.
You have to realize (as I sure you do) that statements have implications. You also have to be aware of these implications. I see now that you are either A oblivious to these implications (which is possible), even though 3/5 would affirm that there are implications, or B, you know what the implications are but are rather attempting to frustrate me so that I come of as sounding irritated on this thread when a you make a claim but then run away from it's natural implications which have been confirmed by 3/5 people.
I hope its the earlier, but unfortunately, after what I have seen on this thread and the thread where I was collecting this data, it appears that you and mykob4 are really consistent at running away from core arguments of a thread and throwing personal insults around. It really appears that instead of really discussing a topic you guys and some others (NOT EVERYONE HERE THANKFULLY!) have been more skilled at derailing a topic and going into personal attack and trying to keep people going back and fourth on personal attack then trying to get to the heart of a topic and attempt to finish it. I'm not sure why you guys aren't willing to finish a debate even if it is a conclusion of "we'll agree to disagree".
I thought Atheists were interested in the truth! I really thought that I would come on here and find people who could have a conversation without relying on those types of insults to try and win a debate rather than making and fostering a space of honest reflection on one's point and keeping to that point until that point is resolved. This is what is done in academic circles and I have seen that many atheists are highly educated so I assumed that it would likely be the case here on this thread. I still think I may find it.
On another thread for example someone made a claim about scripture, they quoted a verse and said God was bad because of that verse. This quote was incorrect and found no where in scripture. I knew this but I also knew that his claim WAS INDEED supported by scripture. Instead of attacking his false quote and insulting him and derailing the discussion in such a way; I rather, in order to be faithful to a pursuit of truth I actually corrected him and SUPPORTED his argument (which I disagreed with) with a scripture that would confirm his accusation against God. I helped him out not because I think he's dumb. I think he's actually very intelligent. I think you guys are all actually very intelligent and am impressed when people bring up certain points (not insults). One reason why I'm on this website is because debating with people who have real questions and honestly search and question makes me really evaluate what I believe and get better or discard things that may be invalid. This kind of pursuit is what I was hoping to find here. I think I still can. I think I still can find that in you too as well as Mykob4. How are you guys supposed to win me over to your position if 80-90% of my discussions with you is not discussing core points but deflecting and receiving personal attacks that everyone auto-agrees to whether its supported or not?
I'm sorry if I have wrongly insulted you; again it is not my intention to be malicious or evil. If you point out that this is true and it is supported well I will repent and apologize to you =]. But until then I'm hoping that here on out I can find eventually a thread where we discuss these matters with the heart that really asks: What is truth? and pursue that answer responsibly, peacefully, and even passionately but why should it ever be disrespectful if you are pursuing truth?
I will now drop this subject and I look forward to your reply and discussions on other threads.
@Whatistruth
You lying piece of shit!
OK, so you have laid out what happened right before you used the word "IF" in that first quoted sentence, but you haven't answered explicitly why you used it. I'll ask a fourth time: why did you use the word "IF" after I had already told you twice? To aid you in answering this question I suggest the following sentence (to be completed by you):
Even though I had already been told twice exactly what was meant, I used the word "IF" because: _ _ _.
Nyarlathotep,
I'm really trying to be respectful of you... I thought I answered this. I want you to know that I care about you and am willing to go the extra mile.
I thought I answered your question. But I'll try again hopefully I can cover the specific if in question, I used a lot of them in our conversation. I will refer to the one in your last comment which is bolded.
Upon reflection "Even though I had already been told twice exactly what was meant, I used the word "IF" because: I thought that my extrapolated conclusion was a natural implication of your statement. Therefore, when you wrote "The thing is I meant exactly what I wrote." I took that as a confirmation of my extrapolation. This is why I wrote the word's if in my next comment. I was confused. How can you confirm what I interpreted but then negate it. I wasn't sure what you meant. However, again upon reflection In my attempt to answer everyone's comments alone I rushed through what you were saying in this instance and came up with a incorrect interpretation of your statements. This was not correct and I apologize.
@whatistruth1838.146
Why don't you post the outcome of your study in the study thread? You know like your hypothesis and the actual data instead of your textual summary?
I can only surmise it was some sort of test about if atheist seek the truth or not. And based on the poll he gathered 1 data point from an atheist that he agreed with his premise, (I am guessing maybe mine?) I said all no's. As in that scenario I would not trust someone I did not know at all's conclusions with 80+% confidence. (common sense to me.)
I was aware I was participating in poll that was likely manipulative, but I do not see the harm in doing so, just anonymous conversation on the web, could almost not be less formal/scientific. My point was that it could be any 3 questions and I would still say no.
Pages