Atheists Overreach ... Why do they do that?

[Ana the Ist]

Sure it can, and it can be fabricated and manipulated and created.

If it's fabricated or manipulated then it's not really evidence.

 

[Tone]

What others? You asked how I'd save my life....and as the only 200+ year old man I'd say that the "superpowers" angle is a good way to go.

P.S. in the scenario, you are 35 years old...married...6 kids...and you happen to care for many many people.

 

[Tone]

If it's fabricated or manipulated then it's not really evidence.

Even if a Judge and Jury...and the vast majority of scholars decides it is?

 

[Ana the Ist]

P.S. in the scenario, you are 35 years old...married...6 kids...and you happen to care for many many people.

I'd use my time traveling abilities to escape into the future.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Even if a Judge and Jury...and the vast majority of scholars decides it is?

People can be mistaken.

 

[keith99]

Maybe I wasn't clear. In the scenario, you are in the minority, but not necessarily apart of the 5%...so, you're an atheist. The question is concerning what you would use as an argument to prevent the consensus from carrying out their desire.

*Having no Revelation to appeal to...what then?

What I already said works just fine. Or I might choose the path of trying to hide those at risk. I would fit rather poorly in a society where people are killed just for being different.

 

[keith99]

How would you defend yourself or someone else accused of being a witch? Unlike the previous idea this one is rooted in History.

 

[Ana the Ist]

How would you defend yourself or someone else accused of being a witch? Unlike the previous idea this one is rooted in History.

If you're tied and thrown into a pond....if you sink, you aren't a witch.

 

[Tone]

How would you defend yourself or someone else accused of being a witch? Unlike the previous idea this one is rooted in History.

I would appeal to the Bible.

 

[keith99]

If you're tied and thrown into a pond....if you sink, you aren't a witch.

Do you think they would fish me out in about a minute? I'm good for that from competitive swimming and free diving. I guess I should have gone into synchronized swimming. Then I'd be good for at least 2 minutes.

 

[keith99]

I would appeal to the Bible.

You mean the book that they burned men for translating into 'the vulgar tongue'?

 

[Tone]

You mean the book that they burned men for translating into 'the vulgar tongue'?

Ummmmm...sure.

 

[Occams Barber]

I would appeal to the Bible.

The problem you'll have with using the Bible is that, while it may say that a particular act is wrong, it will rarely say why it is wrong.

This means that quoting the Bible is no different to simply saying 'this is wrong'. A Bible quote is not an argument - it's an unsupported opinion.

While you may accuse an atheist of being unable to defend his/her sense of morality, effectively Christians are in the same boat.
OB

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Let's assume the worst claims about atheism in the book are true. I don't think they are....but let's pretend....

Does a lack of a moral or ethical standard mean that "atheism" is a false position? Of course not....atheism has nothing to do with morals or ethics.

Does science's lack of acknowledgement of it's limitations have any bearing on the truth of atheism? Nope....not even a little.

Does the fact that mankind frequently believes in irrational and superstitious things make atheism untrue? Of course not....what the majority of people "believe" is nothing but an argument from popularity.

So even if I assume the worst arguments about atheism are true....that still gives me no reason to believe in the existence of a god. After all, I'd rather believe in the truth....even if it had bad consequences ...than a lie that has great consequences.

You wouldn't rather believe in the lie, would you?

You obviously haven't a clue as to what the focus of this OP thread is about, do you? If you did, you wouldn't be ending your post with a battery of superfluous questions which incline toward an epistemologically oriented posture. Do you even know what Shermer and Smith are discussing? Do you even know who Michael Shermer is, for that matter?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The problem you'll have with using the Bible is that, while it may say that a particular act is wrong, it will rarely say why it is wrong.

This means that quoting the Bible is no different to simply saying 'this is wrong'. A Bible quote is not an argument - it's an unsupported opinion.

While you may accuse an atheist of being unable to defend his/her sense of morality, effectively Christians are in the same boat.
OB

This is a bit of overreach, wouldn't you say? While the Bible may indeed be somewhat sparse in providing info on the reasons for which we are to 'obey' God (or Jesus or the Holy Spirit), those reasons are present, nevertheless. We might not like the reasons we find there, and we may think they're not sophisticated enough for our modern brains, but our dislike doesn't indicate their non-existence.

On the other hand, the atheistic reaching to make a case and frame an ethical posture often is done out of sheer existential perceptions of necessity, not because of any objective right or wrong. And that's more or less the focal point of this thread.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What use is a long quote telling me what someone isn't saying???

I could spend the rest of my afternoon filling this thread with posts about what I'm not saying lol.

And please don't litter my thread with those kinds of attempts. Thank you for your cooperation!

 

[Occams Barber]

This is a bit of overreach, wouldn't you say? While the Bible may indeed be somewhat sparse in providing info on the reasons for which we are to 'obey' God (or Jesus or the Holy Spirit), those reasons are present, nevertheless. We might not like the reasons we find there, and we may think they're not sophisticated enough for our modern brains, but our dislike doesn't indicate their non-existence.

A few examples of the Bible justifying its 'shalt nots' would help me to appreciate your point.

On the other hand, the atheistic reaching to make a case and frame an ethical posture often is doesn't out of sheer existential perceptions of necessity, not because of any objective right or wrong. And that's more or less the focal point of this thread.

I'm not clear on what you're trying to say here. Some of the more basic common moralities (e,g., don't harm others unless...) probably arise from unconscious, evolutionary behaviour related to group living and kinship instincts. Beyond that cultural transmission begins to take over and what is seen as right/wrong behaviour begins to differentiate in various cultures.

We could argue that some of the very basic moralities have an objective (but unconscious) value while culturally transmitted morality becomes increasingly variable (i.e., subjective) and less amenable to objective justification.

While we may disagree on details, the similarities in our moral values derive from a similar cultural background.
OB

 

[keith99]

This is a bit of overreach, wouldn't you say? While the Bible may indeed be somewhat sparse in providing info on the reasons for which we are to 'obey' God (or Jesus or the Holy Spirit), those reasons are present, nevertheless. We might not like the reasons we find there, and we may think they're not sophisticated enough for our modern brains, but our dislike doesn't indicate their non-existence.

On the other hand, the atheistic reaching to make a case and frame an ethical posture often is doesn't out of sheer existential perceptions of necessity, not because of any objective right or wrong. And that's more or less the focal point of this thread.

Only if one believes it is the word of God. I see little reason to believe a bronze age book that has some holes more than big enough to run a camel through as the literal word of God.

All Christians have is an appeal to authority and an authority that seems to decline to show Himself.

Or put differently why should I believe some guy who claimed a burning bush talked to him when I've never even met him, let alone decided he is both honest and not easily fooled. If I happen across a talking burning bush that is not consumed I might feel differently. But that or anything like it has never happened to anyone I even know, let alone know and trust.

A claim that something exists is not teh same as the thing existing.

 

[keith99]

A few examples of the Bible justifying its 'shalt nots' would help me to appreciate your point.
...


OB

The only one I can think of is in the dietary laws. Oh wait I remembered another that would be classed as sanitation.

I'm not going to give them now because I'm going to give the Christians who should know their Scriptures far better than I a chance to cite them.

Don't be greedy if you know them, give one and give one of your brothers a chance to show he knows the other (or even knows one I did not think of).

 

[Tone]

The problem you'll have with using the Bible is that, while it may say that a particular act is wrong, it will rarely say why it is wrong.

This means that quoting the Bible is no different to simply saying 'this is wrong'. A Bible quote is not an argument - it's an unsupported opinion.

While you may accuse an atheist of being unable to defend his/her sense of morality, effectively Christians are in the same boat.
OB

Not true at all, the Bible is very clear on why anything that is not conducive to holy life is wrong....in fact, it is the only source of such wisdom and knowledge.